Evaluation of a new two-step frailty assessment of head and neck patients in a prospective cohort.

PURPOSE: Assessing frailty, in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is key when choosing appropriate treatment. Optimal screening is challenging, as it should be feasible and should avoid over-referral for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) This study aims to evaluate the association between geriatric assessment using a new two-step care pathway, referral to geriatrician and adverse outcomes. METHODS: This institutional retrospective analysis on a prospective cohort analysed the multimodal geriatric assessment (GA) of newly diagnosed HNC patients. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression was performed to study the association between the screening tests, and referral to the geriatrician for complete geriatric screening, and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 539 patients, of whom 276 were screened. Patients who underwent the GA, were significantly older and more often had advanced tumour stages compared to non-screened patients. Referral to the geriatrician was done for 30.8% of patients. Of the 130 patients who underwent surgery, 26/130 (20%) experienced clinically relevant postoperative complications. Of the 184 patients who underwent (radio)chemotherapy, 50/184 (27.2%) had clinically relevant treatment-related toxicity. Age, treatment intensity, polypharmacy and cognitive deficits, were independently associated with referral to geriatrician. A medium to high risk of malnutrition was independently associated with acute radiation induced toxicity and adverse outcomes in general. CONCLUSION: The current study showed a 30.8% referral rate for CGA by a geriatrician. Age, treatment intensity, cognitive deficits and polypharmacy were associated with higher rates of referral. Furthermore, nutritional status was found to be an important negative factor for adverse treatment outcomes, that requires attention.

Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS).

PURPOSE: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30-50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68-0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSION: The current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections.

BACKGROUND: Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center. METHODS: Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications. RESULTS: Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Outcomes of surgical treatment of non-metastatic gastric cancer in patients aged 70 and older: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The optimal surgical treatment strategy for gastric cancer in older patients needs to be carefully evaluated due to increased vulnerability of older patients. We performed a database search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that included patients ≥70 years with potentially resectable stage I-III gastric cancer. Postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between groups undergoing 1) gastrectomy vs conservative treatment (best supportive care or non-operative treatment), 2) minimally invasive (MIG) vs open gastrectomy (OG), or 3) extended vs limited lymphadenectomy. When possible, results were pooled using risk ratios (RR). Thirty-one studies were included. Six retrospective studies compared overall survival (OS) between gastrectomy (N = 2332) and conservative treatment (N = 246). Longer OS was reported in the gastrectomy group in all studies, but study quality was low and meta-analysis was not feasible. Eighteen cohort studies compared MIG (N = 3626) and OG (N = 5193). MIG was associated with fewer complications (pooled RR 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.84). OS was not different between the groups. Two RCTs and five cohort studies compared outcomes between extended (N = 709) and limited lymphadenectomy (N = 1323). Complication rates were comparable between the groups. Two cohort studies found longer OS or cancer-specific survival after extended lymphadenectomy. No quality of life (QoL) or functional outcomes were reported. In older patients with gastric cancer, there is low-quality evidence for better OS after gastrectomy vs conservative treatment. Compared to OG, MIG was associated with less postoperative morbidity. The evidence to support extended lymphadenectomy is limited. QoL and functional outcomes should be addressed in future studies.

Multidisciplinary decision-making in older patients with cancer, does it differ from younger patients?

BACKGROUND: In order to tailor treatment to the individual patient, it is important to take the patients context and preferences into account, especially for older patients. We assessed the quality of information used in the decision-making process in different oncological MDTs and compared this for older (≥70 years) and younger patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional observations of oncological MDTs were performed, using an observation tool in a University Hospital. Primary outcome measures were quality of input of information into the discussion for older and younger patients. Secondary outcomes were the contribution of different team members, discussion time for each case and whether or not a treatment decision was formulated. RESULTS: Five-hundred and three cases were observed. The median patient age was 63 year, 32% were ≥70. In both age groups quality of patient-centered information (psychosocial information and patient's view) was poor. There was no difference in quality of information between older and younger patients, only for comorbidities the quality of information for older patients was better. There was no significant difference in the contributions by team members, discussion time (median 3.54 min) or number of decision reached (87.5%). CONCLUSION: For both age groups, we observed a lack of patient-centered information. The only difference between the age groups was for information on comorbidities. There were also no differences in contributions by different team members, case discussion time or number of decisions. Decision-making in the observed oncological MDTs was mostly based on medical technical information.

Radiofrequency ablation and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PELICAN): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are treated with chemotherapy, of whom approximately 10% undergo a resection. Cohort studies investigating local tumor ablation with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have reported a promising overall survival of 26-34 months when given in a multimodal setting. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of RFA in combination with chemotherapy in patients with LAPC are lacking. METHODS: The "Pancreatic Locally Advanced Unresectable Cancer Ablation" (PELICAN) trial is an international multicenter superiority RCT, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). All patients with LAPC according to DPCG criteria, who start with FOLFIRINOX or (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine, are screened for eligibility. Restaging is performed after completion of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX or two cycles of (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine (i.e., 2 months of treatment), and the results are assessed within a nationwide online expert panel. Eligible patients with RECIST stable disease or objective response, in whom resection is not feasible, are randomized to RFA followed by chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In total, 228 patients will be included in 16 centers in The Netherlands and four other European centers. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, RECIST response, CA 19.9 and CEA response, toxicity, quality of life, pain, costs, and immunomodulatory effects of RFA. DISCUSSION: The PELICAN RCT aims to assess whether the combination of chemotherapy and RFA improves the overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone, in patients with LAPC with no progression of disease following 2 months of systemic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry NL4997 . Registered on December 29, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690323 . Retrospectively registered on October 1, 2018.

Clinical relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: when negative amylase levels tell the truth.

Drain Amylase level are routinely determined to diagnose pancreatic fistula after Pancreatocoduodenectomy. Consensus is lacking regarding the cut-off value of amylase to diagnosis clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF). The present study proposes a model based on Amylase Value in the Drain (AVD) measured in the first three postoperative days to predict a POPF. Amylase cut-offs were selected from a previous published systematic review and the accuracy were validated in a multicentre database from 12 centres in 2 countries. The present study defined POPF the 2016 ISGPS criteria (3 times the upper limit of normal serum amylase). A learning machine method was used to correlate AVD with the diagnosis of POPF. Overall, 454 (27%) of 1638 patients developed POPF. Machine learning excluded a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae with an AUC of 0.962 (95% CI 0.940-0.984) in the first five postoperative days. An AVD at a cut-off of 270 U/L in 2 days in the first three postoperative days excluded a POPF with an AUC of 0.869 (CI 0.81-0.90, p < 0.0001). A single AVD in the first three postoperative days may not exclude POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. The levels should be monitored until day 3 and have two negative values before removing the drain. In the group with a positive level, the drain should be kept in and AVD monitored until postoperative day five.

Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012-2017) in ten medium-volume (10-19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i). RESULTS: Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.

Microscopic resection margin status in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - A nationwide analysis.

INTRODUCTION: First, this study aimed to assess the prognostic value of different definitions for resection margin status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Second, preoperative predictors of direct margin involvement were identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This nationwide observational cohort study included all patients who underwent upfront PDAC resection (2014-2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were subdivided into three groups: R0 (≥1 mm margin clearance), R1 (<1 mm margin clearance) or R1 (direct margin involvement). Survival was compared using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Logistic regression with baseline variables was performed to identify preoperative predictors of R1 (direct). RESULTS: 595 patients with a median OS of 18 months (IQR 10-32 months) months were analysed. R0 (≥1 mm) was achieved in 277 patients (47%), R1 (<1 mm) in 146 patients (24%) and R1 (direct) in 172 patients (29%). R1 (direct) was associated with a worse OS, as compared with both R0 (≥1 mm) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 [95% and confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.70); P < 0.01) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.29 [95%CI 1.01-1.67]; P < 0.05). No OS difference was found between R0 (≥1 mm) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.05 [95% CI 0.82-1.34]; P = 0.71). Preoperative predictors associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) included age, male sex, performance score 2-4, and venous or arterial tumour involvement. CONCLUSION: Resection margin clearance of <1 mm, but without direct margin involvement, does not affect survival, as compared with a margin clearance of ≥1 mm. Given that any vascular tumour involvement on preoperative imaging was associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) resection with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy might be considered in these patients.

The treatment and survival of elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: The treatment options for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) have improved in recent years and consequently survival has increased. It is unknown, however, if elderly patients benefit from these improvements in therapy. With the ongoing aging of the patient population and an increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, this patient group becomes more relevant. This study aims to clarify the association between increasing age, treatment and overall survival in patients with LAPC. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter registry including consecutive patients with LAPC, who were registered in 14 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (April 2015-December 2017). Patients were divided in three groups according to age (<65, 65-74 and ≥75 years). Primary outcome was overall survival stratified by primary treatment strategy. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 422 patients with LAPC were included; 162 patients (38%) aged <65 years, 182 patients (43%) aged 65-74 and 78 patients (19%) aged ≥75 years. Chemotherapy was administered in 86%, 81% and 50% of the patients in the different age groups (p<0.01). Median overall survival was 12, 11 and 7 months for the different age groups (p<0.01).Patients treated with chemotherapy showed comparable median overall survival of 13, 14 and 10 months for the different age groups (p=0.11). When adjusted for confounders, age was not associated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients are less likely to be treated with chemotherapy, but when treated with chemotherapy, their survival is comparable to younger patients.

Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Dutch guidelines indicate that treatment of pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies should be started within 3 weeks of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. This study aimed to assess the impact of time to surgery on oncological outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients scheduled for pancreatoduodenectomy and who were discussed in an MDT meeting from May 2012 to December 2016 were eligible. Time to surgery was defined as days between the final preoperative MDT meeting and surgery, categorized in tertiles (short interval, 18 days or less; intermediate, 19-32 days; long, 33 days or more). Oncological outcomes included overall survival, resection rate and R0 resection rate. RESULTS: A total of 2027 patients were included, of whom 677, 665 and 685 had a short, intermediate and long time interval to surgery respectively. Median time to surgery was 25 (i.q.r. 14-36) days. Longer time to surgery was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·87 to 1·13; P = 0·929), resection rate (relative risk (RR) 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·01; P = 0·091) or R0 resection rate (RR 1·01, 0·94 to 1·09; P = 0·733). Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a long time interval had a lower resection rate (RR 0·92, 0·85 to 0·99; P = 0·029). DISCUSSION: A longer time interval between the last MDT meeting and pancreatoduodenectomy did not decrease overall survival.

ANTECEDENTES: Las guías holandesas señalan que el inicio del tratamiento de los cánceres de cabeza de páncreas o periampulares se realice durante las tres semanas posteriores a la reunión del equipo multidisciplinar. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la repercusión del tiempo transcurrido hasta la cirugía en los resultados oncológicos. MÉTODOS: Se trataba de un estudio de cohortes retrospectivo de base poblacional de pacientes con tumores pancreáticos de cabeza y periampulares a partir del registro de cáncer holandés. Se incluyeron los pacientes programados para duodenopancreatectomía cefálica discutidos en una reunión de equipo multidisciplinario entre mayo de 2012 y diciembre de 2016. El tiempo hasta la cirugía se definió como los días transcurridos entre la reunión final del equipo multidisciplinar y la cirugía, clasificándose en terciles (corto ≤ 18 días; intermedio 19-32 días; largo ≥ 33 días). Los resultados oncológicos analizados fueron la supervivencia global, la tasa de resección y la tasa de resección R0. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 2.027 pacientes, de los que 677, 665 y 685 correspondieron a los terciles de intervalo corto, intermedio y largo, respectivamente. La mediana del tiempo hasta la cirugía fue de 25 días (rango intercuartílico 14-36). La existencia de un intervalo de tiempo largo hasta la cirugía no se asociaba con la supervivencia global (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,99; i.c. del 95% 0,87-1,13; P = 0,93), la tasa de resección (riesgo relativo, RR 0,96; i.c. del 95% 0,91-1,01; P = 0,09) o la tasa de resección R0 (RR 1,01; i.c. del 95% 0,94-1,09; P = 0,73). Los pacientes con adenocarcinoma ductal pancreático y mayor intervalo tuvieron una tasa de resección más baja (RR 0,92; i.c. del 95%: 0,85-0,99; P = 0,03). CONCLUSIÓN: Un mayor intervalo de tiempo entre la última reunión del equipo multidisciplinar y la duodenopancreatectomía cefálica no disminuyó la supervivencia global.

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. DISCUSSION: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018.

The role of abdominal drainage in pancreatic resection - A multicenter validation study for early drain removal.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal drainage and the timing of drain removal in patients undergoing pancreatic resection are under debate. Early drain removal after pancreatic resection has been reported to be safe with a low risk for clinical relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) when drain amylase on POD1 is < 5000U/L. The aim of this study was to validate this algorithm in a large national cohort. METHODS: Patients registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2016) who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy or enucleation were analysed. Data on post-operative drain amylase levels, drain removal, postoperative pancreatic fistulae were collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model were performed. The primary outcome measure was grade B/C pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). RESULTS: Among 1402 included patients, 433 patients with a drain fluid amylase level of <5000U/L on POD1, 7% developed a CR-POPF. For patients with an amylase level >5000U/L the CR-POPF rate was 28%. When using a cut-off point of 2000U/L or 1000U/L during POD1-3, the CR-POPF rates were 6% and 5% respectively. For patients with an amylase level of >2000U/L and >1000UL during POD 1-3 the CR-POPF rates were 26% and 22% respectively (n = 223). Drain removal on POD4 or thereafter was associated with more complications (p = 0.004). Drain amylase level was shown to be the most statistically significant predicting factor for CR-POPF (Wald = 49.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data support early drain removal after pancreatic resection. However, a cut-off of 5000U/L drain amylase on POD1 was associated with a relatively high CR-POPF rate of 7%. A cut-off point of 1000U/L during POD1-3 resulted in 5% CR-POPF and might be a safer alternative.

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial).

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. METHODS: The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €-427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €-4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75-10) versus 7 (4-8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Vacuum-assisted early transanal closure of leaking low colorectal anastomoses: the CLEAN study.

INTRODUCTION: Non-healing of anastomotic leakage can be observed in up to 50% after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This study investigates the efficacy of early transanal closure of anastomotic leakage after pre-treatment with the Endosponge® therapy. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, feasibility study, transanal suturing of the anastomotic defect was performed after vacuum-assisted cleaning of the presacral cavity. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a healed anastomosis at 6 months after transanal closure. Secondary, healing at last follow-up, continuity, direct medical costs, functionality and quality of life were analysed. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and July 2015, 30 rectal cancer patients with a leaking low colorectal anastomosis were included, of whom 22 underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 14 (7-29) months. At 6 months, the anastomosis had healed in 16 (53%) patients. At last follow-up, anastomotic integrity was found in 21 (70%) and continuity was restored in 20 (67%) patients. Non-healing at 12 months was observed in 10/29 (34%) patients overall, and in 3/14 (21%) when therapy started within three weeks following the index operation. Major LARS was reported in 12/15 (80%) patients. The direct medical costs were €8933 (95% CI 7268-10,707) per patient. CONCLUSION: Vacuum-assisted early transanal closure of a leaking anastomosis after total mesorectal excision with 73% preoperative radiotherapy showed that acceptable anastomotic healing rates and stoma reversal rates can be achieved. Early diagnosis and start of treatment seems crucial.

The effects of physical prehabilitation in elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: Prehabilitation, defined as enhancement of the preoperative condition of a patient, is a possible strategy for improving postoperative outcome. Lack of muscle strength and poor physical condition, increasingly prevalent in older patients, are risk factors for postoperative complications. Eighty-five per cent of patients with colorectal cancer are aged over 60 years. Since surgery is the cornerstone of their treatment, this review systemically examined the literature on the effect of physical prehabilitation in older patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHOD: Trials and case-control studies investigating the effect of physical prehabilitation in patients over 60 years undergoing colorectal surgery were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Patient characteristics, the type of intervention and outcome measurements were recorded. The risk of bias and heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: Five studies including 353 patients were identified. They were small, containing an average of 77 patients and were of moderate methodological quality. Compliance rates of the prehabilitation programme varied from 16 to 97%. None of the studies could identify a significant reduction of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. Four studies showed physical improvement (walking distance, respiratory endurance) in the prehabilitation group. Clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation is a possible means of enhancing the physical condition of patients preoperatively. The quality of studies in older patients undergoing colorectal surgery is poor, despite the increase in elderly people with colorectal cancer. Defining specific patient groups at risk and standardizing the outcome are essential for improving the results of treatment.