A Combination of Biochemical and Pathological Parameters Improves Prediction of Postresection Survival After Preoperative Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: The PANAMA-score.

OBJECTIVE: To build a prognostic score for patients with primary chemotherapy undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer based on pathological parameters and preoperative Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels. BACKGROUND: Prognostic stratification after primary chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is challenging and prediction models, such as the AJCC staging system, lack validation in the setting of preoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with primary chemotherapy resected at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2007 and 2017 were analyzed. Tumor characteristics independently associated with overall survival were identified and weighted by Cox-proportional regression. The pancreatic neoadjuvant Massachusetts-score (PANAMA-score) was computed from these variables and its performance assessed by Harrel concordance index and area under the receiving characteristics curves analysis. Comparisons were made with the AJCC staging system and external validation was performed in an independent cohort with primary chemotherapy from Heidelberg, Germany. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients constituted the training cohort. The multivariate analysis demonstrated tumor size, number of positive lymph-nodes, R-status, and high CA19-9 to be independently associated with overall survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis according to low, intermediate, and high PANAMA-score showed good discriminatory power of the new metrics (P < 0.001). The median overall survival for the three risk-groups was 45, 27, and 12 months, respectively. External validation in 258 patients confirmed the prognostic ability of the score and demonstrated better accuracy compared with the AJCC staging system. CONCLUSION: The proposed PANAMA-score, based on independent predictors of postresection survival, including pathologic variables and CA19-9, not only provides better discrimination compared to the AJCC staging system, but also identifies patients at high-risk for early death.

Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. DESIGN: We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%). RESULTS: Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy.

Characterization and Optimal Management of High-risk Pancreatic Anastomoses During Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the optimal fistula mitigation strategy following pancreaticoduodenectomy. BACKGROUND: The utility of technical strategies to prevent clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) may vary by the circumstances of the anastomosis. The Fistula Risk Score (FRS) identifies a distinct high-risk cohort (FRS 7 to 10) that demonstrates substantially worse clinical outcomes. The value of various fistula mitigation strategies in these particular high-stakes cases has not been previously explored. METHODS: This multinational study included 5323 PDs performed by 62 surgeons at 17 institutions. Mitigation strategies, including both technique related (ie, pancreatogastrostomy reconstruction; dunking; tissue patches) and the use of adjuvant strategies (ie, intraperitoneal drains; anastomotic stents; prophylactic octreotide; tissue sealants), were evaluated using multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 522 (9.8%) PDs met high-risk FRS criteria, with an observed CR-POPF rate of 29.1%. Pancreatogastrostomy, prophylactic octreotide, and omission of externalized stents were each associated with an increased rate of CR-POPF (all P < 0.001). In a multivariable model accounting for patient, surgeon, and institutional characteristics, the use of external stents [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.81] and the omission of prophylactic octreotide (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.78) were independently associated with decreased CR-POPF occurrence. In the propensity score matched cohort, an "optimal" mitigation strategy (ie, externalized stent and no prophylactic octreotide) was associated with a reduced rate of CR-POPF (13.2% vs 33.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The scenarios identified by the high-risk FRS zone represent challenging anastomoses associated with markedly elevated rates of fistula. Externalized stents and omission of prophylactic octreotide, in the setting of intraperitoneal drainage and pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction, provides optimal outcomes.