Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. RESULTS: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM >5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34, P = 0.023), >3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00-1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25-2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy but not chemotherapy is associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula remains the leading cause of significant morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy has been described to reduce the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but randomized trials on neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma focus increasingly on preoperative chemotherapy rather than preoperative chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy on postoperative pancreatic fistula and other pancreatic-specific surgery related complications on a nationwide level. METHODS: All patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included in the mandatory nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2020). Baseline and treatment characteristics were compared between immediate surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The relationship between preoperative chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 2,019 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included, of whom 1,678 underwent immediate surgery (83.1%), 192 (9.5%) received preoperative chemotherapy, and 149 (7.4%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 8.3% of patients after immediate surgery, 4.2% after preoperative chemotherapy, and 2.0% after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (P = .004). In multivariable analysis, the use of preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.69; P = .033) compared with immediate surgery, whereas preoperative chemotherapy was not (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.25; P = .199). Intraoperatively hard, or fibrotic pancreatic texture was most frequently observed after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (53% immediate surgery, 62% preoperative chemotherapy, 77% preoperative chemoradiotherapy, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This nationwide analysis demonstrated that in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, only preoperative chemoradiotherapy, but not preoperative chemotherapy, was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2-3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9-53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.

Minimum and Optimal CA19-9 Response After Two Months Induction Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Nationwide Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: This nationwide multicenter study aimed to define clinically relevant thresholds of relative serum CA19-9 response after 2 months of induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: CA19-9 is seen as leading biomarker for response evaluation in patients with LAPC, but early clinically useful cut-offs are lacking. METHODS: All consecutive patients with LAPC after 4 cycles (m)FOLFIRINOX or 2 cycles gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel induction chemotherapy (±radiotherapy) with CA19-9 ≥5 U/mL at baseline were analyzed (2015-2019). The association of CA19-9 response with median OS (mOS) was evaluated for different CA19-9 cut-off points. Minimum and optimal CA19-9 response were established via log-rank test. Predictors for OS were analyzed using COX regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 212 patients were included, of whom 42 (19.8%) underwent resection. Minimum CA19-9 response demonstrating a clinically significant median OS difference (12.7 vs. 19.6 months) was seen at ≥40% CA19-9 decrease. The optimal cutoff for CA19-9 response was ≥60% decrease (21.7 vs. 14.0 mo, P =0.021). Only for patients with elevated CA19-9 levels at baseline (n=184), CA19-9 decrease ≥60% [hazard ratio (HR)=0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98, P =0.042] was independently associated with prolonged OS, as were SBRT (HR=0.42, 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; P =0.001), and resection (HR=0.25, 95% CI, 0.14-0.46, P <0.001), and duration of chemotherapy (HR=0.75, 95% CI, 0.69-0.82, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CA19-9 decrease of ≥60% following induction chemotherapy as optimal response cut-off in patients with LAPC is an independent predictor for OS when CA19-9 is increased at baseline. Furthermore, ≥40% is the minimum cut-off demonstrating survival benefit. These cut-offs may be used when discussing treatment strategies during early response evaluation.

Nationwide Use and Outcome of Surgery for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Following Induction Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several international high-volume centers have reported good outcomes after resection of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following chemo(radio)therapy, but it is unclear how this translates to nationwide clinical practice and outcome. This study aims to assess the nationwide use and outcome of resection of LAPC following induction chemo(radio)therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study including all patients who underwent resection for LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy in all 16 Dutch pancreatic surgery centers (2014-2020), registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. LAPC is defined as arterial involvement > 90° and/or portomesenteric venous > 270° involvement or occlusion. RESULTS: Overall, 142 patients underwent resection for LAPC, of whom 34.5% met the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. FOLFIRINOX was the most commonly (93.7%) used chemotherapy [median 5 cycles (IQR 4-8)]. Venous and arterial resections were performed in 51.4% and 14.8% of patients. Most resections (73.9%) were performed in high-volume centers (i.e., ≥ 60 pancreatoduodenectomies/year). Overall median volume of LAPC resections/center was 4 (IQR 1-7). In-hospital/30-day major morbidity was 37.3% and 90-day mortality was 4.2%. Median OS from diagnosis was 26 months (95% CI 23-28) and 5-year OS 18%. Surgery in high-volume centers [HR = 0.542 (95% CI 0.318-0.923)], ypN1-2 [HR = 3.141 (95% CI 1.886-5.234)], and major morbidity [HR = 2.031 (95% CI 1.272-3.244)] were associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC following chemo(radio)therapy is infrequently performed in the Netherlands, albeit with acceptable morbidity, mortality, and OS. Given these findings, a structured nationwide approach involving international centers of excellence would be needed to improve selection of patients with LAPC for surgical resection following induction therapy.

Nationwide Outcome after Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at very High Risk (ISGPS-D) for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula.

OBJECTIVE: To assess nationwide surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at very high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), categorized as ISGPS-D. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Morbidity and mortality after ISGPS-D PD is perceived so high that a recent randomized trial advocated prophylactic total pancreatectomy (TP) as alternative aiming to lower this risk. However, current outcomes of ISGPS-D PD remain unknown as large nationwide series are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide retrospective analysis including consecutive patients undergoing ISGPS-D PD (i.e., soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2021). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and POPF (ISGPS grade B/C). The use of prophylactic TP to avoid POPF during the study period was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1402 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=57), which decreased to 3.7% (n=20/536) in the last 2 years. Major morbidity occurred in 642 patients (45.9%) and POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642). Patients with POPF had increased rates of major morbidity (88.0% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001) and mortality (6.3% vs. 3.5%; P=0.016), compared to patients without POPF. Among 190 patients undergoing TP, prophylactic TP to prevent POPF was performed in 4 (2.1%). CONCLUSION: This nationwide series found a 4.1% in-hospital mortality after ISGPS-D PD with 45.9% major morbidity, leaving little room for improvement through prophylactic TP. Nevertheless, given the outcomes in 30% of patients who develop POPF, future randomized trials should aim to prevent and mitigate POPF in this high-risk category.

National consensus on a new resectability classification for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma - A modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no practical definition of potentially resectable, borderline or unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is available. Aim of this study was to define criteria to categorize patients for use in a future neoadjuvant or induction therapy study. METHOD: Using the modified DELPHI method, hepatobiliary surgeons from all tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in this study. During five online meetings, predefined factors determining resectability and additional factors regarding surgical resectability and operability were discussed. RESULTS: The five online meetings resulted in 52 statements. After two surveys, consensus was reached in 63% of the questions. The main consensus included a definition regarding potential resectability. 1) Clearly resectable: no vascular involvement (≤90°) of the future liver remnant (FLR) and expected feasibility of radical biliary resection. 2) Clearly unresectable: non-reconstructable venous and/or arterial involvement of the FLR or no feasible radical biliary resection. 3) Borderline resectable: all patients between clearly resectable and clearly unresectable disease. CONCLUSION: This DELPHI study resulted in a practical and applicable resectability, or more accurate, an explorability classification, which can be used to categorize patients for use in future neoadjuvant therapy studies.

Supervised Home-Based Exercise Prehabilitation in Unfit Patients Scheduled for Pancreatic Surgery: Protocol for a Multicenter Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity rates in pancreatic surgery are high, and frail patients with low aerobic capacity are especially at risk of complications and require prophylactic interventions. Previous studies of small patient cohorts receiving intra-abdominal surgery have shown that an exercise prehabilitation program increases aerobic capacity, leading to better treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to assess the feasibility of a home-based exercise prehabilitation program in unfit patients scheduled for pancreatic surgery on a larger scale. METHODS: In this multicenter study, adult patients scheduled for elective pancreatic surgery with a preoperative oxygen uptake (VO2) at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold ≤13 mL/kg/min or a VO2 at peak exercise ≤18 mL/kg/min will be recruited. A total of 30 patients will be included in the 4-week, home-based, partly supervised exercise prehabilitation program. The program comprises 25-minute high-intensity interval training on an advanced cycle ergometer 3 times a week. Training intensity will be based on steep ramp test performance (ie, a short-term maximal exercise test on a cycle ergometer), aiming to improve aerobic capacity. Twice a week, patients will perform functional task exercises to improve muscle function and functional mobility. A steep ramp test will be repeated weekly, and training intensity will be adjusted accordingly. Next to assessing the feasibility (participation rate, reasons for nonparticipation, adherence, dropout rate, reasons for dropout, adverse events, and patient and therapist appreciation) of this program, individual patients' responses to prehabilitation on aerobic capacity, functional mobility, body composition, quality of life, and immune system factors will be evaluated. RESULTS: Recruitment for this study began in January 2022 and is expected to be completed in the summer of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study will provide important clinical and scientific knowledge on the feasibility of a partly supervised home-based exercise prehabilitation program in a vulnerable patient population. This might ease the path to implementing prehabilitation programs in unfit patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery, such as pancreatic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05496777; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05496777. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46526.

Predictive Genetic Biomarkers for the Development of Peritoneal Metastases in Colorectal Cancer.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer-related mortality, of which peritoneal metastases (PMs) have the worse outcome. Metastasis-specific markers may help predict the spread of tumor cells and select patients for preventive strategies. This exploratory pilot study aimed to gain more insight into genetic alterations in primary CRC tumors, which might be a predictive factor for the development of PM. Forty patients with T3 stage CRC were retrospectively divided in three groups: without metachronous metastases during 5-year follow-up (M0, n = 20), with metachronous liver metastases (LM, n = 10) and with metachronous PM (PM, n = 10). Patients with synchronous metastases were excluded. Primary formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples were analyzed via comprehensive genome sequencing (TSO500 analysis) to identify DNA alterations and RNA fusion transcripts in 523 genes and 55 genes, respectively. Thirty-eight samples were included for final analysis. Four M0 tumors and one PM tumor were microsatellite instable. BRAF mutations were uniquely identified in three microsatellite-stable (MSS) PM tumors (37.5%, p = 0.010). RNA analysis showed an additional FAM198A-RAF1 fusion in one PM sample. BRAF p.V600E mutations were only present in PM patients with MSS tumors. Greater attention should be paid to BRAF-mutated tumors in relation to the development of metachronous PM.

The impact of a multi-hospital network on the inequality in odds of receiving resection or ablation for synchronous colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether inequalities in the utilization of resection and/or ablation for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLM) between patients diagnosed in expert and non-expert hospitals changed since a multi-hospital network started. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with SCLM between 2009 and 2020 were included. The likelihood of receiving ablation and/or resection was analyzed in the prenetwork (2009-2012), startup (2013-2016), and matured-network (2017-2020) periods. RESULTS: Nationwide, 13.981patients were diagnosed between 2009 and 2020, of whom 1.624 were diagnosed in the network. Of patients diagnosed in the network's expert hospitals, 36.7% received ablation and/or resection versus 28.3% in nonexpert hospitals (p < 0.01). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving ablation and/or resection for patients diagnosed in expert versus nonexpert hospitals increased from 1.38 (p = 0.581, pre-network), to 1.66 (p = 0.108, startup), to 2.48 (p = 0.090, matured-network). Nationwide, the same trend occurred (respectively OR 1.41, p = 0.011; OR 2.23, p < 0.001; OR 3.20, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed in expert hospitals were more likely to receive ablation and/or resection for SCLM than patients diagnosed in non-expert hospitals. This difference increased over time despite the startup of a multi-hospital network. Establishing a multi-hospital network did not have an effect on reducing the existing unequal odds of receiving specialized treatment. SYNOPSIS: Specialized oncology treatments are increasingly provided through multi-hospital networks. However, scant empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these networks exists. This study analyzes whether a regional multi-hospital network was able to improve equal access to specialized oncology treatments.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. RESULTS: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. CONCLUSION: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

Influence of cholestasis on portal vein embolization-induced hypertrophy of the future liver remnant.

PURPOSE: In the pre-clinical setting, hepatocellular bile salt accumulation impairs liver regeneration following partial hepatectomy. Here, we study the impact of cholestasis on portal vein embolization (PVE)-induced hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). METHODS: Patients were enrolled with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) undergoing PVE before a (extended) right hemihepatectomy. Volume of segments II/III was considered FLR and assessed on pre-embolization and post-embolization CT scans. The degree of hypertrophy (DH, percentual increase) and kinetic growth rate (KGR, percentage/week) were used to assess PVE-induced hypertrophy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (31 CRLM, 19 pCCA) were included. After PVE, the DH and KGR were similar in patients with CRLM and pCCA (5.2 [3.3-6.9] versus 5.7 [3.2-7.4] %, respectively, p = 0.960 for DH; 1.4 [0.9-2.5] versus 1.9 [1.0-2.4] %/week, respectively, p = 0.742 for KGR). Moreover, pCCA patients with or without hyperbilirubinemia had comparable DH (5.6 [3.0-7.5] versus 5.7 [2.4-7.0] %, respectively, p = 0.806) and KGR (1.7 [1.0-2.4] versus 1.9 [0.8-2.4] %/week, respectively, p = 1.000). For patients with pCCA, unilateral drainage in FLR induced a higher DH than bilateral drainage (6.7 [4.9-7.9] versus 2.7 [1.5-4.2] %, p = 0.012). C-reactive protein before PVE was negatively correlated with DH (ρ = - 0.539, p = 0.038) and KGR (ρ = - 0.532, p = 0.041) in patients with pCCA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no influence of cholestasis on FLR hypertrophy in patients undergoing PVE. Bilateral drainage and inflammation appeared to be negatively associated with FLR hypertrophy. Further prospective studies with larger and more homogenous patient cohorts are desirable.

Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of biliary drainage in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The DRAINAGE trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing preoperative endoscopic (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with potentially resectable, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients were randomized in four tertiary referral centers. Follow-up data were available for all included patients. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were readmissions, and re-interventions not including in-trial interventions. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were randomized; 27 in both groups. Median follow-up for both groups was 62 months (95% CI 54-70). The median OS was 13 months (95% CI 7.9-18.1) in the EBD and 7 months (95% CI 0.0-17.2) in the PTBD group (P = 0.28). Twenty (37%, n = 8 EBD vs n = 12 PTBD, P = 0.43) of 54 patients were readmitted at least once, mostly due to drainage-related complications (n = 13, 24%). Of note, 14 out of the 54 patients died within the trial. A total of 76 drainage procedures (32 EBD and 44 PTBD) were performed in 28 patients. The median number of stent or drain placements was 2 (2-4) for the EBD group and 2 (1-3) for the PTBD group (P = 0.77). DISCUSSION: Although this follow-up study represented a small cohort, no long-term differences in survival, readmissions, and drainage procedures for EBD and PTBD were found, even when comparing the resected and unresected group. However, this study demonstrates the complexity of biliary drainage for patients with potentially resectable pCCA, even in tertiary referral centers.

Surgical Outcome After Pancreatoduodenectomy for Duodenal Adenocarcinoma Compared with Other Periampullary Cancers: A Nationwide Audit Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma could differ from pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers, but large multicenter series are lacking. This study aimed to determine surgical outcome in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, compared with other periampullary cancers, in a nationwide multicenter cohort. METHODS: After pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer between 2014 and 2019, consecutive patients were included from the nationwide, mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were stratified by diagnosis. Baseline, treatment characteristics, and postoperative outcome were compared between groups. The association between diagnosis and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher) was assessed via multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 3113 patients, after pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer, were included in this study: 264 (8.5%) patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas and 2849 (91.5%) with other cancers. After pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma, patients had higher rates of major complications (42.8% vs. 28.6%; p < 0.001), postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery [ISGPS] grade B/C; 23.1% vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001), complication-related intensive care admission (14.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.046), re-interventions (39.8% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.001), in-hospital mortality (5.7% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.025), and longer hospital stay (15 days vs. 11 days; p < 0.001) compared with pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. In multivariable analysis, duodenal adenocarcinoma was independently associated with major complications (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.27; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Pancreatoduodenectomy for duodenal adenocarcinoma is associated with higher rates of major complications, pancreatic fistula, re-interventions, and in-hospital mortality compared with patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for other cancers. These findings should be considered in patient counseling and postoperative management.

Osteoclast-like giant cells in hepatocellular carcinoma case description and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The presence of osteoclast-like giant cells (OGC) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rare and literature on this topic is scarce. In this article, we report on a case of a 77-year-old male patient with HCC with OGC and provide an overview of the current literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to find all available literature on OGC in HCC. The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception until October 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen articles on this topic were identified and were included in this review. Data on 14 patients were available, described in twelve case reports, one patient in a patient series and the present case. Median age of included patients was 68 years. Two patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery. Of the 14 cases, eight tumours with OGC arose in a cirrhotic liver. Oncological outcome in this series was unfavourable, even after surgical resection, with a median disease-free survival of 75 d. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of OGC in HCC is rare. Current literature is scarce, and suggests an unfavourable outcome in regard to overall survival of HCC.

Defining Textbook Outcome in liver surgery and assessment of hospital variation: A nationwide population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure covering the surgical care process in a single outcome measure. TO has an advantage over single outcome parameters with low event rates, which have less discriminating impact to detect differences between hospitals. This study aimed to assess factors associated with TO, and evaluate hospital and network variation after case-mix correction in TO rates for liver surgery. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective study of all patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy in the Netherlands in 2019 and 2020. TO was defined as absence of severe postoperative complications, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, and readmission, and obtaining adequate resection margins. Multivariable logistic regression was used for case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: 2376 patients were included. TO was accomplished in 1380 (80%) patients with colorectal liver metastases, in 192 (76%) patients with other liver metastases, in 183 (74%) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and 86 (51%) patients with biliary cancers. Factors associated with lower TO rates for CRLM included ASA score ≥3 (aOR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.95 p = 0.02), extrahepatic disease (aOR 0.64, CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.02), tumour size >55 mm on preoperative imaging (aOR 0.56, CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.02), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (aOR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.98, p = 0.04), and major liver resection (aOR 0.50, CI 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001). After case-mix correction, no significant hospital or oncological network variation was observed. CONCLUSION: TO differs between indications for liver resection and can be used to assess between hospital and network differences.

Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk procedures such as pancreatic resection. METHODS: We did an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that included all patients having pancreatic resection during a 22-month period in the Netherlands. In this trial design, all 17 centres that did pancreatic surgery were randomly allocated for the timing of the crossover from usual care (the control group) to treatment given in accordance with a multimodal, multidisciplinary algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of postoperative complications (the intervention group). Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated scheme, stratified to ensure that low-medium-volume centres alternated with high-volume centres. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment. A smartphone app was designed that incorporated the algorithm and included the daily evaluation of clinical and biochemical markers. The algorithm determined when to do abdominal CT, radiological drainage, start antibiotic treatment, and remove abdominal drains. After crossover, clinicians were trained in how to use the algorithm during a 4-week wash-in period; analyses comparing outcomes between the control group and the intervention group included all patients other than those having pancreatic resection during this wash-in period. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding that required invasive intervention, organ failure, and 90-day mortality, and was assessed by a masked adjudication committee. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL6671. FINDINGS: From Jan 8, 2018, to Nov 9, 2019, all 1805 patients who had pancreatic resection in the Netherlands were eligible for and included in this study. 57 patients who underwent resection during the wash-in phase were excluded from the primary analysis. 1748 patients (885 receiving usual care and 863 receiving algorithm-centred care) were included. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the algorithm-centred care group than in the usual care group (73 [8%] of 863 patients vs 124 [14%] of 885 patients; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 95% CI 0·38-0·61; p<0·0001). Among patients treated according to the algorithm, compared with patients who received usual care there was a decrease in bleeding that required intervention (47 [5%] patients vs 51 [6%] patients; RR 0·65, 0·42-0·99; p=0·046), organ failure (39 [5%] patients vs 92 [10%] patients; 0·35, 0·20-0·60; p=0·0001), and 90-day mortality (23 [3%] patients vs 44 [5%] patients; 0·42, 0·19-0·92; p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: The algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of complications after pancreatic resection considerably improved clinical outcomes compared with usual care. This difference included an approximate 50% reduction in mortality at 90 days. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and UMC Utrecht.