Diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC. METHODS: Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC. RESULTS: Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94-100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers.

Surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with venous resection: an international survey among surgeons and pathologists.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to gain insights in the current surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with portal-superior mesenteric vein resection (VR). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify international expert surgeons (N = 150) and pathologists (N = 40) who published relevant studies between 2009 and 2019. These experts and Dutch surgeons (N = 17) and pathologists (N = 20) were approached to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Overall, 76 (46%) surgeons and 37 (62%) pathologists completed the survey. Most surgeons (71%) estimated that preoperative imaging corresponded correctly with intraoperative findings of venous involvement in 50-75% of patients. An increased complication risk following VR was expected by 55% of surgeons, mainly after Type 4 (segmental resection-venous conduit anastomosis). Most surgeons (61%) preferred Type 3 (segmental resection-primary anastomosis). Most surgeons (75%) always perform the VR themselves. Standard postoperative imaging for patency control was performed by 54% of surgeons and 39% adjusted thromboprophylaxis following VR. Most pathologists (76%) always assessed tumor infiltration in the resected vein and only 54% of pathologists always assess the resection margins of the vein itself. Variation in assessment of tumor infiltration depth was observed. CONCLUSION: This international survey showed variation in the surgical management and pathological assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy with venous involvement. This highlights the lack of evidence and emphasizes the need for research on imaging modalities to improve patient selection for VR, surgical techniques, postoperative management and standardization of the pathological assessment.