Impact of a non-therapeutic laparotomy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with induction (m)FOLFIRINOX: Trans-Atlantic Pancreatic Surgery (TAPS) Consortium study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery in selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer after induction chemotherapy may have drawbacks related to surgical risks and breaks or delays in oncological treatment, in particular when curative intent resection is not possible (that is non-therapeutic laparotomy). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and oncological impact of a non-therapeutic laparotomy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with induction (m)FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective international multicentre study including patients diagnosed with pathology-proven locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with at least one cycle of (m)FOLFIRINOX (2012-2019). Patients undergoing a non-therapeutic laparotomy (group A) were compared with those not undergoing surgery (group B) and those undergoing resection (group C). RESULTS: Overall, 663 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were included (67 patients (10.1%) in group A, 425 patients (64.1%) in group B, and 171 patients (25.8%) in group C). A non-therapeutic laparotomy occurred in 28.2% of all explorations (67 of 238), with occult metastases in 30 patients (30 of 67, 44.8%) and a 90-day mortality rate of 3.0% (2 of 67). Administration of palliative therapy (65.9% versus 73.1%; P = 0.307) and median overall survival (20.4 [95% c.i. 15.9 to 27.3] versus 20.2 [95% c.i. 19.1 to 22.7] months; P = 0.752) did not differ between group A and group B respectively. The median overall survival in group C was 36.1 (95% c.i. 30.5 to 41.2) months. The 5-year overall survival rates were 11.4%, 8.7%, and 24.7% in group A, group B, and group C, respectively. Compared with group B, non-therapeutic laparotomy (group A) was not associated with reduced overall survival (HR = 0.88 [95% c.i. 0.61 to 1.27]). CONCLUSION: More than a quarter of surgically explored patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer after induction (m)FOLFIRINOX did not undergo a resection. Such non-therapeutic laparotomy does not appear to substantially impact oncological outcomes.

Serum CEA as a Prognostic Marker for Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Non-Elevated CA19-9 Levels Treated with FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment: A TAPS Consortium Study.

INTRODUCTION: About 25% of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma have non-elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 levels at baseline, hampering evaluation of response to preoperative treatment. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a potential alternative. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from five referral centers included consecutive patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2012-2019), treated with one or more cycles of (m)FOLFIRINOX, and non-elevated CA19-9 levels (i.e., < 37 U/mL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), including CEA level at baseline, restaging, and dynamics. RESULTS: Overall, 277 patients were included in this study. CEA at baseline was elevated (≥5 ng/mL) in 53 patients (33%) and normalized following preoperative therapy in 14 patients (26%). In patients with elevated CEA at baseline, median OS in patients with CEA normalization following preoperative therapy was 33 months versus 19 months in patients without CEA normalization (p = 0.088). At time of baseline, only elevated CEA was independently associated with (worse) OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.98). At time of restaging, elevated CEA at baseline was still the only independent predictor for (worse) OS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-1.98), whereas elevated CEA at restaging (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.77-1.77) was not. CONCLUSIONS: Serum CEA was elevated in one-third of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma having non-elevated CA19-9 at baseline. At both time of baseline and time of restaging, elevated serum CEA measured at baseline was the only predictor for (worse) OS. Therefore, serum CEA may be a useful tool for decision making at both initial staging and time of restaging in patients with non-elevated CA19-9.

Preoperative chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgical decision-making in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Surgical resection combined with systemic chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with localized pancreatic cancer. Upfront surgery is considered suboptimal in cases with extensive vascular involvement, which can be classified as either borderline resectable pancreatic cancer or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In these patients, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy is currently used as preoperative chemotherapy and is eventually combined with radiotherapy. Thus, more patients might reach 5-year overall survival. Patient selection for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and subsequent surgery is based on anatomical, biological and conditional parameters. Current guidelines and clinical practices vary considerably regarding preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, response evaluation, and indications for surgery. In this Review, we provide an overview of the clinical evidence regarding disease staging, preoperative therapy, response evaluation and surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, a clinical work-up is proposed based on the available evidence and guidelines. We identify knowledge gaps and outline a proposed research agenda.

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?

OBJECTIVE: Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life. RESULTS: After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.

Surgical outcome of a double versus a single pancreatoduodenectomy per operating day.

BACKGROUND: For logistical reasons, some high-volume centers have developed surgical programs wherein 1 surgical team performs 2 pancreatoduodenectomies on a single day. It is unclear whether this practice has a negative impact on surgical outcome. METHODS: We conuducted a retrospective analysis including all consecutive open pancreatoduodenectomies in a single high-volume center (2014-2021). Pancreatoduodenectomies were grouped as the first (pancreatoduodenectomy-1) or second (pancreatoduodenectomy-2) pancreatoduodenectomy on a single day (ie, paired pancreatoduodenectomies) and as pancreatoduodenectomy-3 whenever 1 pancreatoduodenectomy was performed per day (ie, unpaired). Patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures were excluded. The primary outcomes were major morbidity (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and mortality. RESULTS: Among 689 patients, 151 patients had undergone minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, leaving 538 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy for inclusion. The overall rate of major morbidity was 37.4% (n = 200/538) and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.7% (n = 9/538). Overall, 136 (25.3%) patients were operated in 68 pancreatoduodenectomy-1/ pancreatoduodenectomy-2 pairs and 402 (74.7%) patients as unpaired pancreatoduodenectomy (pancreatoduodenectomy-3). No differences were found between pancreatoduodenectomy-1 and pancreatoduodenectomy-2 regarding the rates of major morbidity (35.3% vs 26.5%; P = .265) and mortality (1.5% vs 0%; P = .999). Between the 68 pancreatoduodenectomy-1/ pancreatoduodenectomy-2 pairs and the 402 unpaired pancreatoduodenectomies, the rates of major morbidity (30.9% vs 39.6%; P = .071) and mortality (0.7% vs 2.0%; P = .461) did not differ significantly. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, pancreatoduodenectomy-1 was not associated with major morbidity (odds ratio = 0.913 [95% confidence interval 0.515-1.620]; P = .756), whereas pancreatoduodenectomy-2 was associated with less major morbidity (odds ratio = 0.522 [95% confidence interval 0.277-0.983]; P = .045). CONCLUSION: In a high-volume setting, performing 2 consecutive open pancreatoduodenectomies on a single operating day appears to be safe. This approach may be an option when logistically required.