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.

Perineural Invasion is an Important Prognostic Factor in Patients With Radically Resected (R0) and Node-negative (pN0) Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between perineural invasion (PNI) and overall survival (OS) in a nationwide cohort of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stratified for margin negative (R0) or positive (R1) resection and absence or presence of lymph node metastasis (pN0 or pN1-N2, respectively). BACKGROUND: Patients with R0 and pN0 resected PDAC have a relatively favorable prognosis. As PNI is associated with worse OS, this might be a useful factor to provide further prognostic information for patients counselling. METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on relevant pathological features (PNI, R status, and N status). OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox-proportional hazard analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratio's (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: In total, 1630 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 (interquartile range 33-58) months. PNI was independently associated with worse OS in both R0 patients (HR 1.49 [95%CI 1.18-1.88]; P<0.001) and R1 patients (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.06-1.83]; P=0.02), as well as in pN0 patients (HR 1.75 [95%CI 1.27-2.41]; P<0.001) and pN1-N2 patients (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10-1.67]; P<0.01). In 315 patients with R0N0, multivariable analysis showed that PNI was the strongest predictor of OS (HR 2.24 [95% CI 1.52-3.30]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: PNI is strongly associated with worse survival in patients with resected PDAC, in particular in patients with relatively favorable pathological features. These findings may aid patient stratification and counselling and help guide treatment strategies.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

The Difficulty of Detecting Occult Metastases in Patients with Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Development and External Validation of a Preoperative Prediction Model.

Occult metastases are detected in 10-15% of patients during exploratory laparotomy for pancreatic cancer. This study developed and externally validated a model to predict occult metastases in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Model development was performed within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, including all patients operated for pancreatic cancer (January 2013-December 2017). Multivariable logistic regression analysis based on the Akaike Information Criteria was performed with intraoperative pathologically proven metastases as the outcome. The model was externally validated with a cohort from the University Hospital of Verona (January 2013-December 2017). For model development, 2262 patients were included of whom 235 (10%) had occult metastases, located in the liver (n = 143, 61%), peritoneum (n = 73, 31%), or both (n = 19, 8%). The model included age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03), BMI (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), preoperative nutritional support (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.01-2.74), tumor diameter (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.04-2.45), tumor composition (solid vs. cystic) (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.20-4.35), and indeterminate lesions on preoperative imaging (OR 4.01, 95% CI 2.16-7.43). External validation showed poor discrimination with a C-statistic of 0.56. Although some predictor variables were significantly associated with occult metastases, the model performed insufficiently at external validation.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring of the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and in high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared to LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 minutes,P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI>25 kg/m2, previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with less conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

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.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

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.

The Value of Biological and Conditional Factors for Staging of Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Upfront Resection: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Novel definitions suggest that resectability status for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) should be assessed beyond anatomical criteria, considering both biological and conditional factors. This has, however, yet to be validated on a nationwide scale. This study evaluated the prognostic value of biological and conditional factors for staging of patients with resectable PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nationwide observational cohort study was performed, including all consecutive patients who underwent upfront resection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectable PDAC in the Netherlands (2014-2019) with complete information on preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. PDAC was considered biologically unfavorable (RB+) if CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL and favorable (RB-) otherwise. ECOG ≥ 2 was considered conditionally unfavorable (RC+) and favorable otherwise (RC-). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazard analysis, presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 688 patients were analyzed with a median overall survival (OS) of 20 months (95% CI 19-23). OS was 14 months (95% CI 10 months-median not reached) in 20 RB+C+ patients (3%; HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-2.70), 13 months (95% CI 11-15) in 156 RB+C- patients (23%; HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.50-2.31), and 21 months (95% CI 12-41) in 47 RB-C+ patients (7%; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.62) compared with 24 months (95% CI 22-27) in 465 patients with RB-C- PDAC (68%; reference). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after upfront resection of anatomically resectable PDAC is worse in patients with CA19-9 ≥ 500 U/mL, while performance status had no impact. This supports consideration of CA19-9 in preoperative staging of resectable PDAC.

Artificial intelligence for assessment of vascular involvement and tumor resectability on CT in patients with pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate an automatic model using artificial intelligence (AI) for quantifying vascular involvement and classifying tumor resectability stage in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), primarily to support radiologists in referral centers. Resectability of PDAC is determined by the degree of vascular involvement on computed tomography scans (CTs), which is associated with considerable inter-observer variability. METHODS: We developed a semisupervised machine learning segmentation model to segment the PDAC and surrounding vasculature using 613 CTs of 467 patients with pancreatic tumors and 50 control patients. After segmenting the relevant structures, our model quantifies vascular involvement by measuring the degree of the vessel wall that is in contact with the tumor using AI-segmented CTs. Based on these measurements, the model classifies the resectability stage using the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group criteria as either resectable, borderline resectable, or locally advanced (LA). RESULTS: We evaluated the performance of the model using a test set containing 60 CTs from 60 patients, consisting of 20 resectable, 20 borderline resectable, and 20 locally advanced cases, by comparing the automated analysis obtained from the model to expert visual vascular involvement assessments. The model concurred with the radiologists on 227/300 (76%) vessels for determining vascular involvement. The model's resectability classification agreed with the radiologists on 17/20 (85%) resectable, 16/20 (80%) for borderline resectable, and 15/20 (75%) for locally advanced cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that an AI model may allow automatic quantification of vascular involvement and classification of resectability for PDAC. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This AI model enables automated vascular involvement quantification and resectability classification for pancreatic cancer, aiding radiologists in treatment decisions, and potentially improving patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: • High inter-observer variability exists in determining vascular involvement and resectability for PDAC. • Artificial intelligence accurately quantifies vascular involvement and classifies resectability for PDAC. • Artificial intelligence can aid radiologists by automating vascular involvement and resectability assessments.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: Transatlantic Trend and Postoperative Outcomes Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.

Recurrent cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic hepaticojejunostomy: incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Cholangitis is a well-known complication after hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), which is mainly caused by a stenotic anastomosis. However, the rate of cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic (i.e. patent) HJ is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of recurrent cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic HJ. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients who had undergone hepatobiliary or pancreatic (HPB) surgery requiring HJ (2015-2022). Primary outcome was recurrent non-stenotic cholangitis, risk factors for recurrent non-stenotic cholangitis were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 835 patients with a HJ were included of whom 31/698 (4.4%) patients developed recurrent cholangitis with a non-stenotic HJ during a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 22-50) and 98/796 (12.3%) patients developed a symptomatic HJ stenosis. These 31 patients experienced 205 cholangitis episodes, median 7.0 (IQR 3.8-8.8) per patient, and 71/205 (34.6%) cholangitis episodes required hospitalization. Male sex (aOR 3.17 (95% CI: 1.34-7.49)) and benign disease (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.40-6.33) were identified as risk factors for recurrent cholangitis in non-stenotic HJ in both univariate and multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: This study shows that 4% of patients developed recurrent cholangitis without an underlying HJ stenosis.

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: international multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) recommend a formal oncological resection including splenectomy when distal pancreatectomy is indicated. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy in patients with presumed IPMN. METHODS: An international, retrospective cohort study was undertaken in 14 high-volume centres from 7 countries including consecutive patients after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN (2005-2019). Patients were divided into spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPS). The primary outcome was lymph node metastasis (LNM). Secondary outcomes were overall survival, duration of operation, blood loss, and secondary splenectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 700 patients were included after distal pancreatectomy for IPMN; 123 underwent SPDP (17.6%) and 577 DPS (82.4%). The rate of malignancy was 29.6% (137 patients) and the overall rate of LNM 6.7% (47 patients). Patients with preoperative suspicion of malignancy had a LNM rate of 17.2% (23 of 134) versus 4.3% (23 of 539) among patients without suspected malignancy (P < 0.001). Overall, SPDP was associated with a shorter operating time (median 180 versus 226 min; P = 0.001), less blood loss (100 versus 336 ml; P = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (5 versus 8 days; P < 0.001). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between SPDP and DPS for IPMN after correction for prognostic factors (HR 0.50, 95% c.i. 0.22 to 1.18; P = 0.504). CONCLUSION: This international cohort study found LNM in 6.7% of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for IPMN. In patients without preoperative suspicion of malignancy, SPDP seemed oncologically safe and was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with DPS.

Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in High-Risk Individuals: Incidence, Growth Rate, and Malignancy Risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In high-risk individuals (HRIs), we aimed to assess the cumulative incidence of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and compare IPMN growth, neoplastic progression rate, and the value of growth as predictor for neoplastic progression to these in sporadic IPMNs. METHODS: We performed annual surveillance of Dutch HRIs, involving carriers of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and PV-negative familial pancreatic cancer kindreds. HRIs with IPMNs were compared with Italian individuals without familial risk under surveillance for sporadic IPMNs. RESULTS: A total of 457 HRIs were followed for 48 (range 2-172) months; the estimated cumulative IPMN incidence was 46% (95% confidence interval, 28%-64%). In comparison with 442 control individuals, IPMNs in HRIs were more likely to grow ≥2.5 mm/y (31% vs 7%; P < .001) and develop worrisome features (32% vs 19%; P = .010). PV carriers with IPMNs more often displayed neoplastic progression (n = 3 [11%] vs n = 6 [1%]; P = .011), while familial pancreatic cancer kindreds did not (n = 0 [0%]; P = 1.000). The malignancy risk in a PV carrier with an IPMN was 23% for growth rates ≥2.5 mm/y (n = 13), 30% for ≥5 mm/y (n = 10), and 60% for ≥10 mm/y (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of IPMNs in HRIs is higher than previously reported in the general population. Compared with sporadic IPMNs, they have an increased growth rate. PV carriers with IPMNs are suggested to be at a higher malignancy risk. Intensive follow-up should be considered for PV carriers with an IPMN growing ≥2.5 mm/y, and surgical resection for those growing ≥5 mm/y.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

International survey on opinions and use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: 5-year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey. RESULTS: Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.

Predicting Long-term Disease-free Survival After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for long-term (≥5 years) disease-free survival (DFS) after the resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Despite high recurrence rates, ~10% of patients have long-term DFS after PDAC resection. A model to predict long-term DFS may aid individualized prognostication and shared decision-making. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2016). The best-performing prognostic model was selected by Cox-proportional hazard analysis and Akaike's Information Criterion, presented by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Internal validation was performed, and discrimination and calibration indices were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 836 patients with a median follow-up of 67 months (interquartile range 51-79) were analyzed. Long-term DFS was seen in 118 patients (14%). Factors predictive of long-term DFS were low preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (logarithmic; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10-1.32), no vascular resection (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.58), T1 or T2 tumor stage (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.04, and HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.39, respectively), well/moderate tumor differentiation (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.22-1.68), absence of perineural and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11-1.81 and HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36, respectively), N0 or N1 nodal status (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.54-2.40, and HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.11-1.60, respectively), R0 resection margin status (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07-1.46), no major complications (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97-1.35) and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.47-2.06). Moderate performance (concordance index 0.68) with adequate calibration (slope 0.99) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The developed prediction model, readily available at www.pancreascalculator.com, can be used to estimate the probability of long-term DFS after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy using single-step lumen-apposing metal stents for primary drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction (SCORPION-p): a prospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) as a primary drainage strategy in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). METHODS: A prospective, single-center, pilot study was conducted in patients with pathology-confirmed MBO without gastric outlet obstruction. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and reinterventions. The study was registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry (registry number NL9757). RESULTS: 22 patients were enrolled (median age 69.5 years [interquartile range 64-75.3]). Technical success was achieved in 20/22 patients (91 %). AEs occurred in one patient, namely perforation following inadequate stent deployment (5 %), which was treated in the same procedure. Clinical success was achieved in 19/22 patients (86 %). Stent dysfunction was observed in 11/20 patients (55 %) after technically successful EUS-CDS: two patients were treated conservatively and nine patients underwent reintervention(s). One patient died within ≤ 30 days due to fulminant disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed the safety and feasibility of EUS-CDS using LAMS as a primary drainage strategy. The high incidence of stent dysfunction should be improved before EUS-CDS with LAMS can be seen as a valid alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.