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.

Evaluation of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Resection in Patients with Locally Advanced versus (Borderline) Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes following pancreatectomy in patients with LAPC compared to (B)RPC patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Selected patients diagnosed with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are increasingly undergoing resection following induction chemotherapy. To evaluate the benefit of this treatment approach, it is helpful to compare outcomes in resected patients with primary LAPC to outcomes in resected patients with primary (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC). METHODS: Two prospectively maintained nationwide databases were used for this study. Patients with (B)RPC undergoing upfront tumor resection and patients with resected LAPC after induction therapy were included. Outcomes were postoperative pancreas-specific complications, 90-day mortality, pathological outcomes, disease-free interval (DFI), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 879 patients were included; 103 with LAPC (12%) and 776 with (B)RPC (88%). LAPC patients had a lower WHO performance score and CACI. Postoperative pancreas-specific complications were comparable between groups, except delayed gastric emptying grade C, which occurred more often in LAPC patients (9% vs. 3%, P=0.03). Ninety-day mortality was comparable. About half of the patients in both groups (54% in LAPC vs. 48% in (B)RPC), P=0.21) had a radical resection (R0). DFI was 13 months in both groups (P=0.12) and OS from date of diagnosis was 24 months in LAPC patients and 19 months in (B)RPC patients (P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In our nationwide prospective databases, pancreas-specific complications, mortality and survival in patients with LAPC following pancreatectomy are comparable with those undergoing resection for (B)RPC. These outcomes suggest that postoperative morbidity and mortality after tumor resection in carefully selected patients with LAPC are acceptable.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

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.

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.

Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Whether adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) might prevent peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for high-risk colon cancer is an ongoing debate. This study aimed to determine 5-year oncologic outcomes of the randomized multicenter COLOPEC trial, which included patients with clinical or pathologic T4N0-2M0 or perforated colon cancer and randomly assigned (1:1) to either adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and HIPEC (n = 100) or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). HIPEC was performed using a one-time administration of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2, 30 minutes, 42°C, concurrent fluorouracil/leucovorin intravenously), either simultaneously (9%) or within 5-8 weeks (91%) after primary tumor resection. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Long-term data were available of all 202 patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with a median follow-up of 59 months (IQR, 54.5-64.5). No significant difference was found in 5-year overall survival rate between patients assigned to adjuvant HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy or only adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (69.6% v 70.9%, log-rank; P = .692). Five-year peritoneal metastases rates were 63.9% and 63.2% (P = .907) and 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% and 52.3% (log-rank; P = .875), respectively. No differences in quality-of-life outcomes were found. Our findings implicate that adjuvant HIPEC should still be performed in trial setting only.

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.

Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging During Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy to Detect Suture-Induced Hypoperfusion of the Pancreatic Stump as a Predictor of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula (FLUOPAN): Prospective Proof-of-concept Study.

Background: A potential downside of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is the lack of tactile feedback when tying sutures, which could be especially perilous during pancreatic anastomosis. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF-ICG) could detect transpancreatic-suture-induced hypoperfusion of the pancreatic stump during RPD, which may be related to postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C, but studies are lacking. Methods: This prospective study included 37 patients undergoing RPD to assess the relation between pancreatic stump hypoperfusion as objectified with NIRF-ICG using Firefly and the rate of POPF grade B/C. In 27 patients, NIRF-ICG was performed after tying down the transpancreatic U-sutures. In 10 'negative control' patients, NIRF-ICG was performed before tying these sutures. Results: Pancreatic stump hypoperfusion was detected using NIRF-ICG in 9/27 patients (33%) during RPD. Hypoperfusion was associated with POPF grade B/C (67% [6/9 patients] versus 17% [3/18 patients], P = 0.026). No hypoperfusion was objectified in 10 'negative controls'. Conclusions: Transpancreatic-suture-induced pancreatic stump hypoperfusion can be detected using NIRF-ICG during RPD and was associated with POPF grade B/C. Surgeons could use NIRF-ICG to adapt their suturing approach during robotic pancreatico-jejunostomy. Further larger prospective studies are needed to validate the association between transpancreatic-suture-induced hypoperfusion and POPF.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Nationwide evaluation of pancreatic cancer networks ten years after the centralization of pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians. METHODS: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. RESULTS: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange.