Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes in Liver-First Approach: A Spanish Snapshot Study (the RENACI Project).

(1) Background: The liver-first approach may be indicated for colorectal cancer patients with synchronous liver metastases to whom preoperative chemotherapy opens a potential window in which liver resection may be undertaken. This study aims to present the data of feasibility and short-term outcomes in the liver-first approach. (2) Methods: A prospective observational study was performed in Spanish hospitals that had a medium/high-volume of HPB surgeries from 1 June 2019 to 31 August 2020. (3) Results: In total, 40 hospitals participated, including a total of 2288 hepatectomies, 1350 for colorectal liver metastases, 150 of them (11.1%) using the liver-first approach, 63 (42.0%) in hospitals performing <50 hepatectomies/year. The proportion of patients as ASA III was significantly higher in centers performing ≥50 hepatectomies/year (difference: 18.9%; p = 0.0213). In 81.1% of the cases, the primary tumor was in the rectum or sigmoid colon. In total, 40% of the patients underwent major hepatectomies. The surgical approach was open surgery in 87 (58.0%) patients. Resection margins were R0 in 78.5% of the patients. In total, 40 (26.7%) patients had complications after the liver resection and 36 (27.3%) had complications after the primary resection. One-hundred and thirty-two (89.3%) patients completed the therapeutic regime. (4) Conclusions: There were no differences in the surgical outcomes between the centers performing <50 and ≥50 hepatectomies/year. Further analysis evaluating factors associated with clinical outcomes and determining the best candidates for this approach will be subsequently conducted.

Estudio comparativo entre la gastrectomía total y subtotal en el cáncer distal de estómago: metaanálisis de estudios prospectivos y retrospectivos / Comparative study between total and subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: Meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies

El tipo de gastrectomía, total (GT) o distal (GD), en el cáncer gástrico medio o distal no está claramente consensuada, sobre todo cuando es indiferenciado o difuso de Lauren. Pretendemos en este metaanálisis definir en términos de supervivencia y morbimortalidad cuál de las 2 técnicas debiera ser recomendada. Se han incluido trabajos prospectivos y retrospectivos que comparen ambas técnicas hasta un total de 6.303 pacientes (3.641 GD y 2.662 GT). La GD se asoció de forma significativa con menos complicaciones, menos fístulas anastomóticas y menos mortalidad peroperatoria. El número de ganglios en la GD fue significativamente menor, pero siempre por encima de 15. Por último, la supervivencia a 5 años de la GD fue también superior. Por tanto, la GD, siempre que se obtenga un margen de seguridad e independientemente del tipo histológico, debe efectuarse en la cirugía de cáncer distal de estómago

There is no clear agreement on the type of gastrectomy to be used (either total [TG] or distal [DG]) in middle or distal gastric cancer, especially when it is undifferentiated or Lauren diffuse type. In this meta-analysis, we intend to define which of the 2 techniques should be recommended, based on survival, morbidity and mortality rates. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing both techniques have been included for a total of 6303 patients (3,641 DG and 2,662 TG). DG was significantly associated with fewer complications, fewer anastomotic fistulae, and less perioperative mortality. The number of lymph nodes in DG was significantly lower, but always above 15. Finally, even the 5-year survival of DG was also higher. Therefore, DG, as long as a safety margin is obtained and regardless of the histological type, should be performed in surgery for distal stomach cancer

Comparative study between total and subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: Meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies. / Estudio comparativo entre la gastrectomía total y subtotal en el cáncer distal de estómago: metaanálisis de estudios prospectivos y retrospectivos.

There is no clear agreement on the type of gastrectomy to be used (either total [TG] or distal [DG]) in middle or distal gastric cancer, especially when it is undifferentiated or Lauren diffuse type. In this meta-analysis, we intend to define which of the 2techniques should be recommended, based on survival, morbidity and mortality rates. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing both techniques have been included for a total of 6303 patients (3,641 DG and 2,662 TG). DG was significantly associated with fewer complications, fewer anastomotic fistulae, and less perioperative mortality. The number of lymph nodes in DG was significantly lower, but always above 15. Finally, even the 5-year survival of DG was also higher. Therefore, DG, as long as a safety margin is obtained and regardless of the histological type, should be performed in surgery for distal stomach cancer.

Pancreatic grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors behave similarly to neuroendocrine carcinomas following resection: a multi-center, international appraisal of the WHO 2010 and WHO 2017 staging schema for pancreatic neuroendocrine lesions.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the WHO updated their 2010 classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, introducing a well-differentiated, highly proliferative grade 3 tumor, distinct from neuroendocrine carcinomas. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical significance of this update in a large cohort of resected tumors. METHODS: Using a multicenter, international dataset of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine lesions, patients were classified both according to the WHO 2010 and 2017 schema. Multivariable survival analyses were performed, and the models were evaluated for discrimination ability and goodness of fit. RESULTS: Excluding patients with a known germline MEN1 mutation and incomplete data, 544 patients were analyzed. The performance of the WHO 2010 and 2017 models was similar, however surgically resected grade 3 tumors behaved very similarly to neuroendocrine carcinomas. CONCLUSION: The addition of a grade 3 NET classification may be of limited utility in surgically resected patients, as these lesions have similar postoperative survival compared to carcinomas. While the addition may allow for a more granular evaluation of novel treatment strategies, surgical intervention for high grade tumors should be considered judiciously.

Results of a survey on peri-operative nutritional support in pancreatic and biliary surgery in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction: a survey on peri-operative nutritional support in pancreatic and biliary surgery among Spanish hospitals in 2007 showed that few surgical groups followed the 2006 ESPEN guidelines. Ten years later we sent a questionnaire to check the current situation. Methods: a questionnaire with 21 items sent to 38 centers, related to fasting time before and after surgery, nutritional screening use and type, time and type of peri-operative nutritional support, and number of procedures. Results: thirty-four institutions responded. The median number of pancreatic resections (head/total) was 29.5 (95% CI: 23.0-35; range, 5-68) (total, 1002); of surgeries for biliary malignancies (non-pancreatic), 9.8 (95% CI: 7.3-12.4; range, 2-30); and of main biliary resections for benign conditions, 10.4 (95% CI: 7.6-13.3; range, 2-33). Before surgery, only 41.2% of the sites used nutritional support (< 50% used any nutritional screening procedure). The mean duration of preoperative fasting for solid foods was 9.3 h (range, 6-24 h); it was 6.6 h for liquids (range, 2-12). Following pancreatic surgery, 29.4% tried to use early oral feeding, but 88.2% of the surveyed teams used some nutritional support; 26.5% of respondents used TPN in 100% of cases. Different percentages of TPN and EN were used in the other centers. In malignant biliary surgery, 22.6% used TPN always, and EN in 19.3% of cases. Conclusions: TPN is the commonest nutrition approach after pancreatic head surgery. Only 29.4% of the units used early oral feeding, and 32.3% used EN; 22.6% used TPN regularly after surgery for malignant biliary tumours. The 2006 ESPEN guideline recommendations are not regularly followed 12 years after their publication in our country.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Introducción: realizamos una encuesta sobre soporte nutricional perioperatorio en cirugía pancreática y biliar en hospitales españoles en 2007, que mostró que pocos grupos quirúrgicos seguían las guías de ESPEN 2006. Diez años después enviamos un cuestionario para comprobar la situación actual. Métodos: treinta y ocho centros recibieron un cuestionario con 21 preguntas sobre tiempo de ayunas antes y después de la cirugía, cribado nutricional, duración y tipo de soporte nutricional perioperatorio, y número de procedimientos. Resultados: respondieron 34 grupos. La mediana de pancreatectomías (cabeza/total) fue de 29,5 (IC 95%: 23,0-35; rango, 5-68) (total, 1002), la de cirugías biliares malignas de 9,8 (IC 95%: 7,3-12,4; rango, 2-30) y la de resecciones biliares por patología benigna de 10,4 (IC 95%: 7,6-13,3; rango, 2-33). Solo el 41,2% de los grupos utilizaban soporte nutricional antes de la cirugía (< 50% habian efectuado un cribado nutricional). El tiempo medio de ayuno preoperatorio para sólidos fue de 9,3 h (rango, 6-24 h), y de 6,6 h para líquidos (rango, 2-12). Tras la pancreatectomía, el 29,4% habían intentado administrar una dieta oral precoz, pero el 88,2% de los grupos usaron algún tipo de soporte nutricional y el 26,5% usaron NP en el 100% de los casos. Los demás grupos usaron diferentes porcentajes de NP y NE en sus casos. En la cirugía biliar maligna, el 22,6% utilizaron NP siempre y NE en el 19,3% de los casos. Conclusiones: la NP es el soporte nutricional más utilizado tras la cirugía de cabeza pancreática. Solo el 29,4% de las unidades usan nutrición oral precoz y el 32,3% emplean la NE tras este tipo de cirugía. El 22,6% de las instituciones usan NP habitualmente tras la cirugía de tumores biliares malignos. Las guías ESPEN 2006 no se siguen de forma habitual en nuestro país tras más de 10 años desde su publicación.

Influencia de las características de los donantes en el desarrollo de una disfunción primaria en los pacientes sometidos a trasplante hepático / Influence of donor characteristics on the development of primary dysfunction after liver transplantation

Introducción. La disfunción primaria (DP) y su forma más grave, el fallo primario (FP), siguen siendo un problema muy importante en los pacientes sometidos a un trasplante hepático (TH), ya que se trata de una entidad de origen desconocido, con una incidencia elevada y con una gran repercusión en su evolución. Los objetivos de nuestro estudio son conocer la incidencia de la DP y la capacidad de 20 características de los donantes para inducir este cuadro. Pacientes y método. Se han estudiado de forma prospectiva los 248 TH realizados consecutivamente durante 79 meses en el Hospital Ramón y Cajal de Madrid en 206 pacientes. Los enfermos fueron clasificados en normofunción primaria y disfunción primaria, y en esta última se reagruparon los casos de FP y función primaria inadecuada. Se definió normofunción primaria o función primaria inadecuada según si las cifras de transaminasas y la actividad de protrombina eran superiores o inferiores a 2.000 U/ml y al 50 por ciento, respectivamente, entre los días segundo y séptimo tras el trasplante hepático. Resultados. La incidencia de DP fue del 9,3 por ciento (23 trasplantes hepáticos), de los cuales 12 (4,8 por ciento) casos fueron un fallo primario. El análisis univariable relacionó significativamente la edad del donante y la causa de la muerte cerebral de él con una mayor frecuencia de DP. El estudio multivariable únicamente lo relacionó con esta última variable (p = 0,04), con una odds ratio (OR) de 4,25 (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95 por ciento, 1,13-16,0). Conclusiones. La DP es una entidad clínica con una incidencia importante. El único factor que ha demostrado su influencia en el desarrollo de una DP es una causa de muerte cerebral diferente de un traumatismo craneoencefálico (AU)