The value of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography to differentiate benign from malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: A prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating between benign and malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) of the pancreas. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Malignant or high-risk IPMN require surgical resection but surgery should be avoided in patients with IPMN carrying a low risk of malignancy. 18F-FDG PET has been studied mostly in small, single center, retrospective series. METHODS: Prospective, non-comparative, multicenter French study. The primary endpoint was the specificity of PET/CT for identifying malignant IPMN (in situ or invasive carcinoma). Final diagnosis was obtained from pathological examination of the resected specimen. RESULTS: Among 120 patients analyzed, 99 had confirmed IPMN, including 24 with malignant lesions, namely 9 with carcinoma in situ and 15 with invasive carcinoma. The 18F-FDG PET/CT was positive in 44 and 31 patients in the overall and IPMN populations respectively. In the 99 IPMN patients, PET/CT showed 13 true positive, 18 false positive, 57 true negative and 11 false negative results. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of malignancy were 54.2%, 76.0%, 83.8% and 41.9% respectively, versus 64.9%, 75.9%, 82.9% and 54.5% in the overall population. We could not identify a cut-off value for SUVmax to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Conventional imaging included computed tomography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound. In IPMN patients who underwent the 3 techniques, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV were 66.7%, 84.4%, 84.4% and 66.7% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 18F-FDG PET/CT did not perform better than conventional imaging to differentiate malignant from benign IPMN.

Comparative analysis of outcomes after liver resection and liver transplantation for early stages hepatocellular carcinoma in HIV-infected patients. An intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND: To address the results of resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-carriers, and to compare them against survival after liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: All patients with HIV and HCC listed for LT (candidates = LTc+) or resection (LR+) between 2000 and 2017 in our centre were analysed and compared for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The LTc + group (n = 43) presented with higher MELD scores and more advanced portal hypertension and HCC stages than LR + group (n = 15). One-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were: 81%, 60% and 44%, versus 86%, 58% and 58% in the LTc+ and LR + groups, respectively (p = 0.746). Eleven LTc + patients dropped out. After LT, OS was 81%, 68% and 59% (no difference with LR + group; p = 0.844). There tended to be better DFS after LT, reaching 78%, 68% and 56% versus 53%, 33% and 33% in the LR + group (p = 0.062). CONCLUSION: This was the largest series of resections for HCC in HIV + patients and the first intention-to-treat analysis. Although LT and resection do not always concern the same population, they enable equivalent survival. At the price of higher recurrence rate, resection could be integrated in the global armoury of liver surgeons.

Multicentre study of perioperative versus adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable colorectal liver metastases.

Background: It is not known whether perioperative chemotherapy, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone, improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) on DFS in patients with upfront resectable CLM. Methods: Consecutive patients who presented with up to five resectable CLM at two Japanese and two French centres in 2008-2015 were included in the study. Both French institutions favoured perioperative FOLFOX, whereas the two Japanese groups systematically preferred upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Cox regression multivariable models were used to adjust for confounding. The primary outcome was DFS. Results: Some 300 patients were included: 151 received perioperative chemotherapy and 149 had upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy. The weighted 3-year DFS rate was 33·5 per cent after perioperative chemotherapy compared with 27·1 per cent after upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0·85, 95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 1·16; P = 0·318). For the subgroup of 165 patients who received adjuvant FOLFOX successfully (for at least 3 months), the adjusted effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significant (HR 1·19, 0·74 to 1·90; P = 0·476). No significant effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was observed in multivariable regression analysis. Conclusion: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, perioperative FOLFOX does not improve DFS in patients with resectable CLM, provided adjuvant chemotherapy is given successfully.

Antecedentes: Se desconoce si la quimioterapia perioperatoria en comparación con la quimioterapia adyuvante sola mejora la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (disease­free survival, DFS) en pacientes con metástasis hepáticas de origen colorrectal (colorectal liver metastases, CLM) resecables de inicio. El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar el impacto de la neoadyuvancia con 5­fluorouracilo, leucovorina y oxaliplatino (FOLFOX) sobre la DFS en pacientes con CLM resecables desde el principio. Métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos que presentaban hasta cinco CLM resecables en dos centros japoneses y dos centros franceses entre 2008 a 2015. Ambas instituciones francesas favorecían FOLFOX perioperatorio, mientras que los dos grupos japoneses utilizaban sistemáticamente la cirugía de entrada y quimioterapia adyuvante. Se utilizaron la probabilidad inversa del tratamiento ponderado (Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting, IPTW) y el modelo multivariable de regresión de Cox para ajustar por factores de confusión. El resultado primario fue la DFS. Resultados: Se incluyeron 300 pacientes (grupo de quimioterapia perioperatoria n = 151 y grupo de cirugía de entrada más quimioterapia adyuvante n = 149). La DFS a los 3 años ponderada fue del 33% después de quimioterapia perioperatoria versus 27% tras cirugía de entrada (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio HR: 0,85; i.c. del 95% (0,62­1,16); P = 0,32). Cuando se consideró el subgrupo de pacientes que (n = 165) de manera efectiva (al menos 3 meses) recibieron FOLFOX adyuvante, el efecto ajustado de la quimioterapia neoadyuvante no fue significativo (HR: 1,19 (0,74­1,90); P = 0,48). No se observó un efecto significativo de la quimioterapia neoadyuvante en el análisis de regresión multivariable. Conclusión: En comparación con la quimioterapia adyuvante, el FOLFOX perioperatorio no mejora la DFS en CLM resecables siempre y cuando la quimioterapia adyuvante se administre de forma efectiva.

BRAF mutation is not associated with an increased risk of recurrence in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: BRAF mutation is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. For patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), the prognostic impact of BRAF mutation is unknown and the benefit of surgery debated. This nationwide intergroup (ACHBT, FRENCH, AGEO) study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcome of patients undergoing liver resection for BRAF-mutated CRLMs. METHODS: The study included patients who underwent resection for BRAF-mutated CRLMs in 24 centres between 2012 and 2016. A case-matched comparison was made with 183 patients who underwent resection of CRLMs with wild-type BRAF during the same interval. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients who underwent resection for BRAF-mutated CRLMs in 24 centres were compared with 183 patients with wild-type BRAF. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 46 and 19 per cent for the BRAF-mutated group, and 55·4 and 27·8 per cent for the group with wild-type BRAF (P = 0·430). In multivariable analysis, BRAF mutation was not associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio 1·16, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 1·85; P = 0·547). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates after surgery were 94 and 54 per cent respectively among patients with BRAF mutation, and 95·8 and 82·9 per cent in those with wild-type BRAF (P = 0·004). Median survival after disease progression was 23·0 (95 per cent c.i. 11·0 to 35·0) months among patients with mutated BRAF and 44·3 (35·9 to 52·6) months in those with wild-type BRAF (P = 0·050). Multisite disease progression was more common in the BRAF-mutated group (48 versus 29·8 per cent; P = 0·034). CONCLUSION: These results support surgical treatment for resectable BRAF-mutated CRLM, as BRAF mutation by itself does not increase the risk of relapse after resection. BRAF mutation is associated with worse survival in patients whose disease relapses after resection of CRLM, as for non-metastatic colorectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Indications for surgical resection of non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine (NCNNE) liver metastases are unclear. This study analysed the influence of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the presence of extrahepatic disease (EHD) on outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent hepatic resection for NCNNE liver metastases and who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a single centre between 1982 and 2016 were analysed retrospectively. Patients were classified as having no EHD, controlled EHD or non-controlled EHD. RESULTS: Hepatic resection was performed in 199 patients (81·2 per cent) after partial or complete response to chemotherapy or disease stabilization, and 46 patients (18·8 per cent) after tumour progression. Patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy had worse overall survival than those without (23 versus 50·4 per cent at 5 years; P = 0·004). Median survival was 63·6 (range 31·1-94·8) months for patients without EHD, 34·8 (19·2-49·2) months for those with controlled EHD and 7·2 (1·2-13·2) months for patients with non-controlled EHD (P = 0·004). In multivariable analysis, EHD (P = 0·004), response to chemotherapy (P = 0·004) and resection margins (P = 0·002) were all independent predictors of overall survival, regardless of primary tumour site. CONCLUSION: The prognosis of patients with NCNNE liver metastases is influenced by preoperative chemotherapy and resectability.

Large hepatocellular carcinoma: Does fibrosis really impact prognosis after resection?

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy remains the standard treatment for large hepatocellular carcinoma (LHCC) ≥5cm. Fibrosis may constitute a contraindication for resection because of high risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure, but its impact on patient outcome and cancer recurrence remains ill defined. Our aim was to compare predictors of survival in patients with and without cirrhosis following hepatectomy for LHCC. METHODS: The data on consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for LHCC in two tertiary centres between 2012 and 2016 were reviewed. The outcomes of cirrhotic (F4) and non-cirrhotic (F0-F3) patients were compared. Patients with perioperative medical (sorafenib) or radiological (transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency) treatments were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included. Preoperative and intraoperative features were identical between both groups. Cirrhotics (n=15) presented more satellite nodules on specimens (73% vs. 44%; P=0.073) but better differentiated lesions than non-cirrhotics (P=0.041). The median overall survival of cirrhotics was 34 vs. 29months for non-cirrhotics (P=0.8), and their disease-free survival was 14 versus 18 months (P=0.9). Fibrosis stage did not impact overall (P=0.2) nor disease-free survivals (P=0.6). CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy for LHCC in cirrhotics can achieve acceptable oncological results when compared to non-cirrhotic patients. Curative resection of LHCC should be attempted if liver function is acceptable, whatever the fibrosis stage.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Locoregional extension of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) at the time of diagnosis results in a low resectability rate and poor prognosis. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced ICC. METHODS: All consecutive patients with ICC between 2000 and 2013 were included prospectively in a single-centre database and analysed retrospectively. Patients with locally advanced ICC considered as initially unresectable received primary chemotherapy, followed by surgery in those with secondary resectability. Results of patients who underwent surgery for locally advanced ICC were compared with those of patients with initially resectable ICC treated by surgery alone. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included in the study. Of 74 patients with locally advanced ICC, 39 (53 per cent) underwent secondary resection after a median of six chemotherapy cycles. Patients in this group were younger (P = 0·030) and had more advanced disease than those who had surgery alone, and presented more frequently with lymphadenopathy (P = 0·010) and vascular invasion (P = 0·010). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were no different between the groups. The median survival of patients who had surgery after chemotherapy was 24·1 months, and that of patients who had surgery alone was 25·7 months (P = 0·391). CONCLUSION: Patients with locally advanced ICC treated by surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy had similar short- and long-term results to patients with initially resectable ICC who had surgery alone. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for locally advanced ICC may be an effective downstaging option, facilitating secondary resectability in patients with initially unresectable disease.

What is the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on outcomes in gastro-intestinal cancer?

Multimodal therapeutic strategies combining chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery have been shown to be feasible and to have a positive impact on outcomes by decreasing the risk of locoregional recurrence and often by increasing overall survival. The advantages of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy include optimal tumor control combined with better tolerance and compliance to treatment while also increasing the number of candidates for surgery. Whereas indications for neoadjuvant therapy are increasing, its impact on surgical treatment and postoperative outcomes are not well-known. Surgeons frequently believe that chemo(radio)therapy may amplify intraoperative difficulties, thereby increasing postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this review was to report the state of the art regarding: (i) the role of chemo(radio)therapy; (ii) its impact on surgical indications and modalities; and (iii) its impact on postoperative outcomes for the most frequently encountered gastro-intestinal cancers, i.e. esophageal, rectal, pancreatic, and anal canal cancer.

Outcomes of surgical shunts and transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunts for complicated portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunt (TIPSS), instead of surgical shunt, has become the standard treatment for patients with complicated portal hypertension. This study compared outcomes in patients who underwent TIPSS or surgical shunting for complicated portal hypertension. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all consecutive patients who received portasystemic shunts from 1994 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients who underwent surgical shunting were compared with those who had a TIPSS procedure following one-to-one propensity score matching. The primary study endpoints were overall survival and shunt failure, defined as major variceal rebleeding, relapse of refractory ascites, irreversible shunt occlusion, liver failure requiring liver transplantation, or death. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients received either a surgical shunt or TIPSS. Of these, 334 consecutive patients with cirrhosis who underwent elective surgical shunting (34) or TIPSS (300) for repeated variceal bleeding or refractory ascites were evaluated. Propensity score matching yielded 31 pairs of patients. There were no between-group differences in morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. However, shunt failure was less frequent after surgical shunting than TIPSS (6 of 31 versus 16 of 31; P = 0·016). The 5-year shunt failure-free survival (77 versus 15 per cent; P = 0·008) and overall survival (93 versus 42 per cent; P = 0·037) rates were higher for patients with surgical shunts. Multivariable analysis revealed that a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceeding14 and TIPSS were independently associated with shunt failure. In patients with MELD scores of 14 or less, the 5-year overall survival rate remained higher after surgical shunting than TIPSS (100 versus 40 per cent; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Surgical shunting achieved better results than TIPSS in patients with complicated portal hypertension and low MELD scores.

Long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation combined with hepatectomy compared with hepatectomy alone for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Combining radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with hepatectomy may enable treatment with curative intent for patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the oncological outcomes in comparison with resection alone remain to be clarified. METHODS: Patients who underwent a first hepatectomy between 2001 and 2012 for CRLM were enrolled. Short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent hepatectomy plus RFA were compared with those of patients who had hepatectomy alone using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of a total of 553 patients, hepatectomy + RFA and hepatectomy alone were performed in 37 and 516 respectively. Before matching, patients in the hepatectomy + RFA group were characterized primarily by a larger tumour burden. After matching of 31 patients who underwent hepatectomy + RFA with 93 who had hepatectomy alone, background characteristics were well balanced. In the matched cohort, overall and disease-free survival in the hepatectomy + RFA group were no different from those among patients who had hepatectomy alone (5-year overall survival rate 57 versus 61 per cent, P = 0·649; 5-year disease-free survival rate 19 versus 17 per cent, P = 0·865). Local recurrence at the ablated site was observed in four of 31 patients (13 per cent). Although overall local recurrence (ablated site and/or cut surface) was more frequent in the hepatectomy + RFA group (9 of 31 (29 per cent) versus 11 of 93 (12 per cent); P = 0·032), there was no difference in intrahepatic disease-free survival between the two groups (P = 0·705). CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy + RFA achieved outcomes comparable to hepatectomy alone. Combining RFA with hepatectomy should be considered as an option to achieve cure.

Radiological evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become common practice in the management of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This strategy helps better select patients who would benefit from surgical resection and also increase the number of patients amenable to surgical resection whose tumor seemed too locally advanced on initial imaging. However, several studies have shown that the radiological evaluation of the response after neoadjuvant therapy is difficult for pancreatic carcinoma. This article reviews the scientific basis of neoadjuvant therapy for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer and provides an update on tumor response evaluation with imaging after neoadjuvant treatment.

Outcome after associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy and conventional two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been increasingly adopted by many centres, the oncological outcome for colorectal liver metastases compared with that after two-stage hepatectomy is still unknown. METHODS: Between January 2010 and June 2014, all consecutive patients who underwent either ALPPS or two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in a single institution were included in the study. Morbidity, mortality, disease recurrence and survival were compared. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in terms of clinicopathological characteristics. ALPPS was completed in all 17 patients, whereas the second-stage hepatectomy could not be completed in 15 of 41 patients. Ninety-day mortality rates for ALPPS and two-stage resection were 0 per cent (0 of 17) versus 5 per cent (2 of 41) (P = 0·891). Major complication rates (Clavien grade at least III) were 41 per cent (7 of 17) and 39 per cent (16 of 41) respectively (P = 0·999). Overall survival was significantly lower after ALPPS than after two-stage hepatectomy: 2-year survival 42 versus 77 per cent respectively (P = 0·006). Recurrent disease was more often seen in the liver in the ALPPS group. Salvage surgery was less often performed after ALPPS (2 of 8 patients) than after two-stage hepatectomy (10 of 17). CONCLUSION: Although major complication and 90-day mortality rates of ALPPS were similar to those of two-stage hepatectomy, overall survival was significantly lower following ALPPS.

Factors influencing recurrence following initial hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Data on recurrence patterns following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) and their impact on long-term outcomes are limited in the setting of modern multimodal management. This study sought to characterize the patterns of, factors associated with, and survival impact of recurrence following initial hepatectomy for CRLMs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing initial hepatectomy for CRLMs at 39 institutions (2006-2013) was conducted. Kaplan-Meier methods were used for survival analyses. Overall survival landmark analysis at 12 months after hepatectomy was performed to compare groups based on recurrence. Multivariable Cox and regression models were used to determine factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: Among 2320 patients, tumours recurred in 47·4 per cent at median of 10·1 (range 0-88) months; 89·1 per cent of recurrences developed within 3 years. Recurrence was intrahepatic in 46·2 per cent, extrahepatic in 31·8 per cent and combined intra/extrahepatic in 22·0 per cent. The 5-year overall survival rate decreased from 74·3 (95 per cent c.i. 72·2 to 76·4) per cent without recurrence to 57·5 (55·0 to 60·0) per cent with recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3·08, 95 per cent c.i. 2·31 to 4·09). After adjusting for clinicopathological variables, prehepatectomy factors associated with increased risk of recurrence were node-positive primary tumour (HR 1·27, 1·09 to 1·49), more than three liver metastases (HR 1·27, 1·06 to 1·52) and largest metastasis greater than 4 cm (HR 1·19; 1·01 to 1·43). CONCLUSION: Recurrence after CRLM resection remains common. Although overall survival is inferior with recurrence, excellent survival rates can still be achieved.

Nomogram for prediction of prognosis in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although recent advances in surgery and chemotherapy have increasingly enabled hepatectomy in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), not all such patients benefit from surgery. The aim of this study was to develop a nomogram to predict survival after hepatectomy for initially unresectable CRLM. METHODS: Patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with chemotherapy followed by hepatectomy between 1990 and 2012 were included in the study. A nomogram to predict survival was developed based on a multivariable Cox model. The predictive performance of the model was assessed according to the C-statistic, Kaplan-Meier curve and calibration plots. RESULTS: Of a total of 439 patients, liver and globally completed surgery was achieved in 380 (86·6 per cent) and 335 (76·3 per cent) patients respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 39·9 and 10·0 per cent respectively. Based on the Cox model, the following five factors were selected for the nomogram and assigned specific scores: node-positive primary, 5; more than six metastases at hepatectomy, 7; carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level at hepatectomy above 37 units/ml, 10; disease progression during first-line chemotherapy, 9; and presence of extrahepatic disease, 4. The model achieved relatively good discrimination and calibration, with a C-statistic of 0·66. The overall survival rate for patients with a score greater than 16 was significantly worse than that for patients with a score of 16 or less (5-year survival rate 4 versus 46·3 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: The nomogram facilitates personalized assessment of prognosis for patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with chemotherapy and with planned resection.

Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery?

Prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 (NCT01269567) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery.

Toward a standard technique for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? Synthesis of the 2013 ACHBT Spring workshop.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is currently a commonly performed procedure. Twenty-five retrospective studies comparing laparotomy and laparoscopy have dealt with the feasibility of this approach for localized benign and malignant tumors. However, these studies report several different techniques. The aim of this review was to determine if a standardized procedure could be proposed. Based on the literature and the experience of surgeons in the French Association of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation (ACBHT-Association française de chirurgie hépato-biliaire et de transplantation hépatique), we recommend primary control of the splenic artery, use of linear staplers for pancreatic transection, splenic vein control either at its end or its origin, and, depending on local conditions, preservation of the splenic vessels when splenic preservation is envisioned. Current data do not allow establishment of any definitive recommendations as to the ideal site of pancreatic transection, operative patient position, or the direction of dissection, which mainly depends on local practices. Control of the splenic vein remains the critical point of this procedure, and impacts the intra-operative strategy.

FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of an AGEO multicenter prospective observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX significantly increases overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) compared with gemcitabine. The aim of this observational cohort was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of this regimen in unresectable locally advanced PA (LAPA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 2010 to February 2012, all consecutive patients from 11 French centers treated by FOLFIRINOX for a histologically proven LAPA were prospectively enrolled. Unresectability was defined independently by each center's multidisciplinary staff at diagnosis. Absence of metastatic disease was confirmed by chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography scan. FOLFIRINOX was delivered every 2 weeks as previously reported until progressive disease, major toxicity, or consolidation treatment by radiotherapy and/or surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled. They received a median number of five cycles (1-30). Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (11 %), nausea (9 %), diarrhea (6 %), fatigue (6 %), and anemia (1 %). Grade 2-3 sensory neuropathy occurred in 25 % of patients. No toxic death was reported and only 6 % of patients had to stop treatment because of toxicity. Disease control rate was 84 with 28 % of objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Seventy-five percent of patients received a consolidation therapy: 70 % had radiotherapy and 36 % underwent a surgical resection, with a curative intent. Within the whole cohort, 1-year OS rate was 77 % (95 % CI 65-86) and 1-year progression-free survival rate was 59 % (95 % CI 46-70). CONCLUSION: First-line FOLFIRINOX for LAPA seems to be effective and have a manageable toxicity profile. These promising results will have to be confirmed in a phase III randomized trial.

Primary monophasic synovial sarcoma of the pancreas.

We report a case of synovial sarcoma of the pancreas in a 44-year-old male who presented with multiple episodes of retroperitoneal hemorrhage; the diagnosis was confirmed by histology. The patient underwent distal pancreatectomy without complication, and the hospital stay was nine days. No adjuvant treatment was administered. The patient is alive at 1 year.