A Risk Score Model for Locoregional Recurrence Following Upfront Surgery for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Adjuvant Therapy.

AIMS: The aims of the study were to identify predictors of locoregional failure (LRF) following surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, develop a prediction risk score model of LRF and evaluate the impact of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) on LRF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients with stages I-III pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery at our institution (2005-2016). Univariable and then multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinicopathological factors associated with LRF for patients who did not receive PORT. The risk score of LRF was calculated based on the sum of coefficients of the predictors of LRF. The model was applied to the entire cohort to evaluate the impact of PORT on the high- and low-risk groups for LRF. RESULTS: In total, 467 patients were identified (median follow-up 22 months). Among patients who did not receive PORT (n = 440), predictors of LRF were pN+, involved or close ≤1 mm margin(s), moderately and poorly differentiated tumour grade and lymphovascular invasion. After adding patients who received PORT, the 2-year LRF in the high-risk group was 57% for patients who did not receive PORT (n = 242) and 32% among patients who received PORT (n = 22), with an absolute benefit to LRF of 25% (95% confidence interval 5-52%, P = 0.07). The 2-year overall survival for the high-versus the low-risk group was 36% versus 67% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This risk group classification could be used to identify pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with higher risk of LRF who may benefit from PORT. However, validation and prospective evaluation are warranted.

Planned versus unplanned portal vein resections during pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The management of portal vein (PV) involvement by pancreatic adenocarcinoma during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of unplanned and planned PV resections as part of PD. METHODS: An analysis of PD over 11 years was performed. Patients who had undergone PV resection (PV-PD) were identified, and categorized into those who had undergone planned or unplanned resection. Postoperative and oncological outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 249 patients who underwent PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 66 (26·5 per cent) had PV-PD, including 27 (41 per cent) planned and 39 (59 per cent) unplanned PV resections. Twenty-five of 27 planned PV resections were circumferential PV-PD, whereas 25 of 39 unplanned PV resections were partial PV-PD. Planned PV resections were performed in slightly younger patients (mean(s.d.) 60(9) versus 65(10) years; P = 0·031), and associated with longer operating times (mean(s.d.) 602(131) versus 458(83) min; P < 0·001) and more major complications (26 versus 5 per cent; P = 0·026). Planned PV resections were associated with a lower rate of positive margins (4 versus 44 per cent; P < 0·001) despite being carried out for larger tumours (mean(s.d.) 3·9(1·4) versus 2·9(1·0) cm; P = 0·002). There was no difference in survival between the two groups (P = 0·998). On multivariable analysis, margin status was a significant predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Although planned PV resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were associated with higher rates of postoperative morbidity than unplanned resections, R0 resection rates were better.

Does patient position during liver surgery influence the risk of venous air embolism?

BACKGROUND: It is generally believed that positioning of the patient in a head-down tilt (Trendelenberg position) decreases the likelihood of a venous air embolism during liver resection. METHODS: The physiological effect of variation in horizontal attitude on central and hepatic venous pressure was measured in 10 patients during liver surgery. Hemodynamic indices were recorded with the operating table in the horizontal, 20 degrees head-up and 20 degrees head-down positions. RESULTS: There was no demonstrable pressure gradient between the hepatic and central venous levels in any of the positions. The absolute pressures did, however, vary in a predictable way, being highest in the head-down and lowest during head-up tilt. However, on no occasion was a negative intraluminal pressure recorded. CONCLUSION: The effect on venous pressures caused by the change in patient positioning alone during liver surgery does not affect the risk of venous air embolism.