Improved Clinical Staging System for Localized Pancreatic Cancer Using the ABC Factors: A TAPS Consortium Study.

PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that besides anatomy (A: resectable, borderline resectable [BR], or locally advanced [LA]) also biologic (B: carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [CA 19-9]) and conditional (C: performance status) factors should be considered when staging patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The prognostic value of the combined ABC factors has not been quantitatively validated. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients with localized PDAC treated with initial (modified) fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin ([m]FOLFIRINOX) at five high-volume pancreatic cancer centers in the United States and the Netherlands (2012-2019). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate the impact of the ABC factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 1,835 patients with localized PDAC were included. Tumor stage at diagnosis was potentially resectable in 346 (18.9%), BR in 531 (28.9%), and LA in 958 (52.2%) patients. The baseline CA 19-9 was >500 U/mL in 559 patients (32.5%). Performance status was ≥1 in 1,110 patients (60.7%). Independent poor prognostic factors for OS were BR disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06 to 1.50]), LA disease (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.45 to 2.02]), CA 19-9 >500 U/mL (HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.52]), and WHO performance status ≥1 (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.47]). Patients were assigned 1 point for each poor ABC factor and 2 points for LA disease. The median OS for patients with score 0-4 was 49.7, 29.9, 22.0, 19.1, and 14.9 months with corresponding 5-year OS rates of 47.0%, 28.9%, 19.2%, 9.3%, and 4.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ABC factors of tumor anatomy, CA 19-9, and performance status at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for OS in patients with localized PDAC treated with initial (m)FOLFIRINOX. Staging of patients with localized PDAC at diagnosis should be based on anatomy, CA 19-9, and performance status.

Predictive value of baseline serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level on treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that the serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) level should be used when deciding on neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (hereafter referred to as pancreatic cancer). In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is advised when the CA19-9 level is 'markedly elevated'. This study investigated the impact of baseline CA19-9 concentration on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data were obtained from two RCTs that compared neoadjuvant CRT with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. The effect of neoadjuvant treatment on overall survival was compared between patients with a serum CA19-9 level above or below 500 units/ml using the interaction test. RESULTS: Of 296 patients, 179 were eligible for analysis, 90 in the neoadjuvant CRT group and 89 in the upfront surgery group. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with superior overall survival (HR 0.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.48 to 0.94; P = 0.019). Among 127 patients (70, 9 per cent) with a low CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 23.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 16.3 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.63, 0.42 to 0.93). For 52 patients (29 per cent) with a high CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 15.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 12.9 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.82, 0.45 to 1.49). The interaction test for CA19-9 level exceeding 500 units/ml on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT was not significant (P = 0.501). CONCLUSION: Baseline serum CA19-9 level defined as either high or low has prognostic value, but was not associated with the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers, in contrast with current guideline advice.

Prolonged antibiotics after pancreatoduodenectomy reduce abdominal infections in patients with positive bile cultures: a dual-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal infections account for substantial morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy. Contaminated bile is the presumed main risk factor, and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis might prevent these complications. This study compared organ/space infection (OSIs) rates in patients receiving perioperative versus prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in two Dutch centers between 2016 and 2019 were included. Perioperative prophylaxis was compared prolonged prophylaxis (cefuroxime and metronidazole for five days). The primary outcome was an isolated OSI: an abdominal infection without concurrent anastomotic leakage. Odds ratios (OR) were adjusted for surgical approach and pancreatic duct diameter. RESULTS: OSIs occurred in 137 out of 362 patients (37.8%): 93 patients with perioperative and 44 patients with prolonged prophylaxis (42.5% versus 30.8%, P = 0.025). Isolated OSIs occurred in 38 patients (10.5%): 28 patients with perioperative and 10 patients with prolonged prophylaxis (12.8% versus 7.0%, P = 0.079). Bile cultures were obtained in 198 patients (54.7%). Patients with positive bile cultures showed higher isolated OSI rates with perioperative compared to prolonged prophylaxis (18.2% versus 6.6%, OR 5.7, 95% CI: 1.3-23.9). CONCLUSION: Prolonged antibiotics after pancreatoduodenectomy are associated with fewer isolated OSIs in patients with contaminated bile and warrant confirmation in a randomised controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0578431).

The Feasibility, Proficiency, and Mastery Learning Curves in 635 Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies Following a Multicenter Training Program: "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in "second-generation" RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. BACKGROUND: The long learning curves for RPD reported from "pioneering" expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in "second-generation" centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in "second-generation" centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016-December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued "lessons learned." RESULTS: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (-12 RPDs, -44%), proficiency (-32 RPDs, -34%), and mastery phase learning curve (-34 RPDs, -23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in "second-generation" centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from "pioneering" expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.

Video Grading of Pancreatic Anastomoses During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy to Assess Both Learning Curve and the Risk of Pancreatic Fistula: A Post Hoc Analysis of the LAELAPS-3 Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the learning curve of pancreaticojejunostomy during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) by using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), taking the fistula risk into account. BACKGROUND: RPD is a challenging procedure that requires extensive training and confirmation of adequate surgical performance. Video grading, modified for RPD, of the pancreatic anastomosis could assess the learning curve of RPD and predict the risk of POPF. METHODS: Post hoc assessment of patients prospectively included in 4 Dutch centers in a nationwide LAELAPS-3 training program for RPD. Video grading of the pancreaticojejunostomy was performed by 2 graders using OSATS (attainable score: 12-60). The main outcomes were the combined OSATS of the 2 graders and POPF (grade B/C). Cumulative sum analyzed a turning point in the learning curve for surgical skill. Logistic regression determined the cutoff for OSATS. Patients were categorized for POPF risk (ie, low, intermediate, and high) based on the updated alternative fistula risk scores. RESULTS: Videos from 153 pancreatic anastomoses were included. Median OSATS score was 48 (interquartile range: 41-52) points and with a turning point at 33 procedures. POPF occurred in 39 patients (25.5%). An OSATS score below 49, present in 77 patients (50.3%), was associated with an increased risk of POPF (odds ratio: 4.01, P =0.004). The POPF rate was 43.6% with OSATS < 49 versus 15.8% with OSATS ≥49. The updated alternative fistula risk scores category "soft pancreatic texture" was the second strongest prognostic factor of POPF (odds ratio: 3.37, P =0.040). Median cumulative surgical experience was 17 years (interquartile range: 8-21). CONCLUSIONS: Video grading of the pancreatic anastomosis in RPD using OSATS identified a learning curve and a reduced risk of POPF in case of better surgical performance. Video grading may provide a valid method to surgical training, quality control, and improvement.

Fistula Risk Score for Auditing Pancreatoduodenectomy: The Auditing-FRS.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals. BACKGROUND: For proper comparisons of outcomes in surgical audits, case-mix variation should be accounted for. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Derivation of the score was performed with the data from 2014 to 2018 and validation with 2019 to 2020 data. The primary endpoint of the study was POPF (grade B or C). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for case-mix adjustment of known risk factors. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, 3271 patients were included, of whom 479 (14.6%) developed POPF. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.66], higher body mass index (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), a final diagnosis other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.90-3.06), and a smaller duct diameter (OR=1.43/mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.32-1.55) were independently associated with POPF. Diabetes mellitus (OR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98) was independently associated with a decreased risk of POPF. Model discrimination was good with a C -statistic of 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort (n=913). Hospitals differed in particular in the proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis patients, ranging from 36.0% to 58.1%. The observed POPF risk per center ranged from 2.9% to 25.4%. The expected POPF rate based on the 5 risk factors ranged from 11.6% to 18.0% among hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The auditing fistula risk score was successful in case-mix adjustment and enables fair comparisons of POPF rates among hospitals.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is an emerging attractive approach, but its role compared with laparoscopic or open surgery remains unclear. Benchmark values are novel and objective tools for such comparisons. The aim of this study was to identify benchmark cutoffs for many outcome parameters for DP with or without splenectomy beyond the learning curve. METHODS: This study analyzed outcomes from international expert centers from patients undergoing robotic DP for malignant or benign lesions. After excluding the first 10 cases in each center to reduce the effect of the learning curve, consecutive patients were included from the start of robotic DP up to June 2020. Benchmark patients had no significant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Benchmark values were compared with a laparoscopic control group from 4 high-volume centers and published open DP landmark series. RESULTS: Sixteen centers contributed 755 cases, whereof 345 benchmark patients (46%) were included the analysis. Benchmark cutoffs included: operation time ≤300 minutes, conversion rate ≤3%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula ≤32%, 3 months major complication rate ≤26.7%, and lymph node retrieval ≥9. The comprehensive complication index at 3 months was ≤8.7 without deterioration thereafter. Compared with robotic DP, laparoscopy had significantly higher conversion rates (5×) and overall complications, while open DP was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This first benchmark study demonstrates that robotic DP provides superior postoperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open DP. Robotic DP may be expected to become the approach of choice in minimally invasive DP.

Treatment Response and Conditional Survival in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with FOLFIRINOX: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is the current Dutch standard of care for locally advanced (LAPC) and metastatic pancreatic cancer (PDAC) patients with good performance status. The objective of this study was to evaluate real-world response rates and survival in advanced PDAC and to assess conditional survival after FOLFIRINOX. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in four hospitals in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients with LAPC or metastatic PDAC, treated with FOLFIRINOX, were included. Results: Between 2012 and 2018, 284 patients were included: n = 136 with LAPC and n = 148 with metastatic PDAC. Objective response rates were similar in both the groups: 14.0% in LAPC and 18.2% in metastatic patients. The disease control rate was higher in LAPC patients (77.2%) compared to metastatic PDAC (51.4%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) in LAPC patients was 12.7 months (95% CI 11.4-14.1 months). Their 2-year survival probability increased from 14% to 26% one year after the completion of FOLFIRINOX. Median OS in metastatic PDAC patients was 8.1 months (95% CI 6.5-9.6 months); 2-year survival probability increased from 10% to 29% after one year. Discussion. Our study provides real-world estimates of response rates, survival, and conditional survival in patients with advanced PDAC treated with FOLFIRINOX. These results are useful for patient counseling and clinical decision making.

Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy After (m)FOLFIRINOX for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A TAPS Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: The value of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after 5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, with or without dose modifications [(m)FOLFIRINOX], for patients with borderline resectable (BR) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with BR PDAC who received (m)FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment (2012-2019) from the Trans-Atlantic Pancreatic Surgery Consortium. Because the decision to administer RT is made after chemotherapy, patients with metastases or deterioration after (m)FOLFIRINOX or a performance score ≥2 were excluded. Patients who received RT after (m)FOLFIRINOX were matched 1:1 by nearest neighbor propensity scores with patients who did not receive RT. Propensity scores were calculated using sex, age (≤70 vs >70 years), WHO performance score (0 vs 1), tumor size (0-20 vs 21-40 vs >40 mm), tumor location (head/uncinate vs body/tail), number of cycles (1-4 vs 5-8 vs >8), and baseline CA 19-9 level (≤500 vs >500 U/mL). Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 531 patients who received neoadjuvant (m)FOLFIRINOX for BR PDAC, 424 met inclusion criteria and 300 (70.8%) were propensity score-matched. After matching, median OS was 26.2 months (95% CI, 24.0-38.4) with RT versus 32.8 months (95% CI, 25.3-42.0) without RT (P=.71). RT was associated with a lower resection rate (55.3% vs 72.7%; P=.002). In patients who underwent a resection, RT was associated with a comparable margin-negative resection rate (>1 mm) (70.6% vs 64.8%; P=.51), more node-negative disease (57.3% vs 37.6%; P=.01), and more major pathologic response with <5% tumor viability (24.7% vs 8.3%; P=.006). The OS associated with conventional and stereotactic body RT approaches was similar (median OS, 25.7 vs 26.0 months; P=.92). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BR PDAC, neoadjuvant RT following (m)FOLFIRINOX was associated with more node-negative disease and better pathologic response in patients who underwent resection, yet no difference in OS was found. Routine use of RT cannot be recommended based on these data.

FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment for Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis by the Trans-Atlantic Pancreatic Surgery Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Large pragmatic studies of patients who received 5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin ([m]FOLFIRINOX) as initial treatment for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are lacking. This study aimed to provide realistic estimates of oncologic outcomes in these patients. METHODS: This international retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients presenting with localized PDAC who received at least 1 cycle of (m)FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment in 5 referral centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2012-2019). Primary outcome was median overall survival (OS), calculated from the date of tissue diagnosis, assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Log-rank test was used to compare OS between groups. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess prognostic baseline factors for OS. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Overall, 1835 patients were included, of whom 958 (52.2%) had locally advanced (LA), 531 (28.9%) had borderline resectable (BR), and 346 (18.9%) had potentially resectable (PR) PDAC. The median number of (m)FOLFIRINOX cycles was 6 (interquartile range = 4-8). Subsequent treatment included second chemotherapy (12.9%), radiotherapy (49.0%), and resection (37.9%). The resection rate was 17.6% for LA, 53.1% for BR, and 70.5% for PR PDAC (P < .001). The margin-negative resection rate (>1 mm) was 55.2% for LA, 62.6% for BR, and 79.2% for PR PDAC (P < .001). The median OS was 18.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.7 to 19.9 months) for LA, 23.2 months (95% CI = 21.0 to 25.7 months) for BR, and 31.2 months (95% CI = 26.2 to 36.6 months) for PR PDAC (P < .001). The median OS for 695 patients who underwent a resection was 38.3 months (95% CI = 36.1 to 42.0 months). Independent prognostic factors at baseline for worse OS were more advanced stage, worse performance status, baseline carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 > 500 U/mL, and body mass index ≤18.5 kg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: This large international cohort study provides realistic estimates of resection rates and survival in patients with LA, BR, and PR PDAC who started (m)FOLFIRINOX treatment in PDAC referral centers.

Development and external validation of a prediction model for overall survival after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic factors are associated with overall survival (OS) after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for 3-year OS after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA. METHODS: The derivation cohort consisted of all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA in the Netherlands (2009-2016). Clinically relevant variables were selected based on the Akaike information criterion using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, with model performance being assessed by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. External validation was performed using patients from the Belgium Cancer Registry (2008-2016), and patients from two university hospitals of Southampton (U.K.) and Verona (Italy). RESULTS: Independent prognostic factors for OS in the derivation cohort of 454 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), pT (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and pN category (pN1: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.32; pN2: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.63-3.01), resection margin status (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.39-2.29) and tumour differentiation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.62-2.53). The prediction model was based on these prognostic factors. The optimism-adjusted C-indices were similar in the derivation cohort (0.69), and in the Belgian (0.66) and Southampton-Verona (0.68) validation cohorts. Calibration was accurate in the Belgian validation cohort (slope = 0.93, intercept = 0.12), but slightly less optimal in the Southampton-Verona validation cohort (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.32). Based on this model, three risk groups with different prognoses were identified (3-year OS of 65.4%, 33.2% and 11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model for 3-year OS after resection of dCCA had reasonable performance in both the derivation and geographically external validation cohort. Calibration slightly differed between validation cohorts. The model is readily available via www. pancreascalculator.com to inform patients from Western European countries on their prognosis, and may be used to stratify patients for clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Long-Term Results of the Dutch Randomized PREOPANC Trial.

PURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival compared with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but high-quality evidence is lacking. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer published since database inception until December 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat with subgroup analyses for resectability status. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Seven trials with 938 patients were included. All trials included a neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy arm. None of the studies used adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.85; P = 0.001; I2 = 46%) compared with upfront surgery. This represents an increase in median OS from 19 to 29 months. In the subgroup of resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e., venous contact ≤180°, no arterial contact), no statistically significant difference in OS was observed (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.12; P = 0.18; I2 = 20%). In the subgroup of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e. venous contact >180°, any arterial contact), neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = 0.004; I2 = 59%). The GRADE certainty of evidence was high for the outcome of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy improves OS compared with upfront surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. More evidence is required on whether neoadjuvant therapy improves survival for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3).

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and safety of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) adhering to the IDEAL framework for implementation of surgical innovation. BACKGROUND: Good results for RPD have been reported from single center studies. However, data on feasibility and safety of implementation through a multicenter training program in RPD are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter training program in RPD was designed together with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, including an online video bank, robot simulation exercises, biotissue drills, and on-site proctoring. Benchmark patients were based on the criteria of Clavien. Outcomes were collected prospectively (March 2016-October 2019). Cumulative sum analysis of operative time was performed to distinguish the first and second phase of the learning curve. Outcomes were compared between both phases of the learning curve. Trends in nationwide use of robotic and laparoscopic PD were assessed in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. RESULTS: Overall, 275 RPD procedures were performed in seven centers by 15 trained surgeons. The recent benchmark criteria for low-risk PD were met by 125 (45.5%) patients. The conversion rate was 6.5% (n = 18) and median blood loss 250ml [interquartile range (IQR) 150-500]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 44.4% (n = 122), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) rate 23.6% (n = 65), 90-day complication-related mortality 2.5% (n = 7) and 90-day cancer-related mortality 2.2.% (n = 6). Median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-20). In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 80), the major complication rate was 31.3% and POPF rate was 10%. Cumulative sum analysis for operative time found a learning curve inflection point at 22 RPDs (IQR 10-35) with similar rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications in the first and second phase (43.4% vs 43.8%, P = 0.956, respectively). During the study period the nationwide use of laparoscopic PD reduced from 15% to 1%, whereas the use of RPD increased from 0% to 25%. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter RPD training program in centers with sufficient surgical volume was found to be feasible without a negative impact of the learning curve on clinical outcomes.

Resection of the Portal-Superior Mesenteric Vein in Pancreatic Cancer: Pathological Assessment and Recurrence Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The portal vein (PV)-superior mesenteric vein (SMV) margin is the most affected margin in pancreatic cancer. This study investigates the association between venous resection, tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV, recurrence patterns, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer (2010-2017). In addition, a systematic literature search was performed. RESULTS: In total, 531 patients were included, of which 149 (28%) underwent venous resection of whom 53% had tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV. Patients with venous resection had a significant higher rate of R1 margins (69% vs 37%) and had more often multiple R1 margins (43% vs 16%). Patient with venous resection had a significant shorter time to locoregional recurrence and a shorter OS (15 vs 19 months). At multivariable analyses, venous resection and tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV were not predictive for time to recurrence and OS. The literature overview showed that pathological assessment of the resected PV-SMV is not adequately standardized. CONCLUSIONS: Only half of patients with venous resection had pathology confirmed tumor invasion in the resected PV-SMV, and both are not independently associated with time to recurrence and OS. The pathological assessment of the resected PV-SMV needs to be standardized.

Added Value of Radiotherapy Following Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC) is unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone or combined with radiotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Embase, Medline (ovidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The primary endpoint was pooled median overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included resection rate, R0 resection rate, and other pathologic outcomes. RESULTS: We included 512 patients with (B)RPC from 15 studies, of which 7 were prospective nonrandomized studies. In total, 351 patients (68.6%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX alone (8 studies) and 161 patients (31.4%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX and radiotherapy (7 studies). The pooled estimated median OS was 21.6 months (range 18.4-34.0 months) for FOLFIRINOX alone and 22.4 months (range 11.0-37.7 months) for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy. The pooled resection rate was similar (71.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.43) and the pooled R0 resection rate was higher for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy (88.0% vs. 97.6%, p = 0.045). Other pathological outcomes (ypN0, pathologic complete response, perineural invasion) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was associated with an improved R0 resection rate as compared with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone, but a difference in survival could not be demonstrated. Randomized trials are needed to determine the added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with (B)PRC.

Preoperative misdiagnosis of pancreatic and periampullary cancer in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer. METHODS: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer). RESULTS: In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pancreatic cancer, 71% for distal cholangiocarcinoma, 73% for ampullary cancer and 73% for duodenal cancer. A prediction model for the preoperative likelihood of pancreatic cancer (versus other periampullary cancer) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated an AUC of 0.88. DISCUSSION: This retrospective multicentre cohort study showed that 16% of patients have a clinically relevant misdiagnosis that could result in either missing the opportunity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer or inappropriate administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer. A preoperative prediction model is available on www.pancreascalculator.com.

Pancreatic resection in the pediatric, adolescent and young adult population: nationwide analysis on complications.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine pancreatic surgery specific short- and long-term complications of pediatric, adolescent and young adult (PAYA) patients who underwent pancreatic resection, as compared to a comparator cohort of adults. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed in PAYA patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2007 and 2016. PAYA was defined as all patients <40 years at time of surgery. Pancreatic surgery-specific complications were assessed according to international definitions and textbook outcome was determined. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were included in the PAYA cohort (112 distal pancreatectomies, 99 pancreatoduodenectomies), and 2526 patients in the comparator cohort. For pancreatoduodenectomy, severe morbidity (29.3% vs. 28.6%; P = 0.881), in-hospital mortality (1% vs. 4%; P = 0.179) and textbook outcome (62% vs. 58%; P = 0.572) were comparable between the PAYA and the comparator cohort. These outcomes were also similar for distal pancreatectomy. After pancreatoduodenectomy, new-onset diabetes mellitus (8% vs. 16%) and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (27% vs. 73%) were lower in the PAYA cohort when compared to adult literature. CONCLUSION: Pancreatic surgery-specific complications were comparable with patients ≥40 years. Development of endocrine and exocrine insufficiency in PAYA patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, however, was substantially lower compared to adult literature.

The prognosis of kidney transplant recipients with aorto-iliac calcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The prognosis of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) with vascular calcification (VC) in the aorto-iliac arteries is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate their survival outcomes. Studies from January 1st, 2000 until March 5th, 2019 were included. Outcomes for meta-analysis were patient survival, (death-censored) graft survival and delayed graft function (DGF). Twenty-one studies were identified, eight provided data for meta-analysis. KTR with VC had a significantly increased mortality risk [1-year: risk ratio (RR) 2.19 (1.39-3.44), 5-year: RR 2.28 (1.86-2.79)]. The risk of 1-year graft loss was three times higher in recipients with VC [RR 3.15 (1.30-7.64)]. The risk of graft loss censored for death [1-year: RR 2.26 (0.58-2.73), 3-year: RR 2.19 (0.49-9.82)] and the risk of DGF (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.58) were not statistically different. The quality of the evidence was rated as very low. To conclude, the presence of VC was associated with an increased mortality risk and risk of graft loss. In this small sample size, no statistical significant association between VC and DGF or risk of death-censored graft loss could be demonstrated. For interpretation of the outcomes, the quality and sample size of the evidence should be taken into consideration.