Surgical Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which age impacts surgical outcomes remains poorly characterized. This study aims to evaluate the impact of age on 30-day outcomes in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2017), distal pancreatectomy patients were identified and age-stratified, groups A (≤75 years) and B (>75 years). Outcomes included 30-day mortality, morbidity, readmissions, operative time (min), and hospital length of stay (LOS, days). RESULTS: Of 3042 total patients identified, 1686 (55.4%) were women. A total of 2649 patients (87.1%) were in group A. Overall, both groups had similar baseline characteristics with the exception of the following: diabetes mellitus (24.8% vs. 30.0%, P = .03), smoking (19.3% vs. 4.8%, P < .001), congestive heart failure (.5% vs. 1.8%, P = .010), hypertension (HTN) (47.9% vs. 72.5%, P < .001), bleeding disorders (3.1% vs. 5.3%, P = .036), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) (III-V) scores (67.6% vs. 85.5%, P < .001), and body mass index (29.2 [±6.7] vs. 27.4 [±5.6], P = .001).Deep surgical site infection was higher in group A (12.1% vs. 6.6%, P = .001), while acute renal failure (ARF) and postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) were higher in group B. 30-day readmissions were higher in group A (17.4% vs. 12.2%, P = .011) despite no statistically significant difference in LOS (7.10 [±6.36] vs. 7.30 [±4.93] days, P = .553) or overall morbidity (29.4% vs. 28.8%, P = .859). CONCLUSION(S): Those undergoing distal pancreatectomy experienced similar overall morbidity and mortality outcomes regardless of age. However, those older than 75 years had more cardiovascular risk factors, which may have contributed to their higher rates of postoperative ARF and MI.

Does drainage or resection predict subsequent interventions and long-term quality of life in patients with Grade IV pancreatic injuries: A population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise remains significant for the treatment of Grade IV pancreatic injuries in stable patients (i.e., drainage vs. resection). The literature is poor in regards to experience, confirmed main pancreatic ductal injury, nuanced multidisciplinary treatment, and long-term patient quality of life (QOL). The primary aim was to evaluate the management and outcomes (including long-term QOL) associated with Grade IV pancreatic injuries. METHODS: All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (1995-2020) were evaluated (Grade IV injuries compared). Concordance of perioperative imaging, intraoperative exploration, and pathological reporting with a main pancreatic ductal injury was required. Patients with resection of Grade IV injuries were compared with drainage alone. Long-term QOL was evaluated (Standard Short Form-36). RESULTS: Of 475 pancreatic injuries, 36(8%) were confirmed as Grade IV. Twenty-four (67%) underwent a pancreatic resection (29% pancreatoduodenectomy; 71% extended distal pancreatectomy [EDP]). Patient, injury and procedure demographics were similar between resection and drainage groups (p > 0.05). Pancreas-specific complications in the drainage group included 92% pancreatic leaks, 8% pseudocyst, and 8% walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Among patients with controlled pancreatic fistulas beyond 90 days, 67% required subsequent pancreatic operations (fistulo-jejunostomy or EDP). Among patients whose fistulas closed, 75% suffered from recurrent pancreatitis (67% eventually undergoing a Frey or EDP). All patients in the resection group had fistula closure by 64 days after injury. The median number of pancreas-related health care encounters following discharge was higher in the drainage group (9 vs. 5; p = 0.012). Long-term (median follow-up = 9 years) total QOL, mental and physical health scores were higher in the initial resection group (p = 0.031, 0.022 and 0.017 respectively). CONCLUSION: The immediate, intermediate and long-term experiences for patients who sustain Grade IV pancreatic injuries indicate that resection is the preferred option, when possible. The majority of drainage patients will require additional, delayed pancreas-targeted surgical interventions and report poorer long-term QOL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiology/Prognostic, Level III.

Glucose Tolerance after Pancreatectomy: A Prospective Observational Follow-Up Study of Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Distal Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Effects of pancreatectomy on glucose tolerance have not been clarified, and evidence regarding the difference in postoperative glucose tolerance between pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) is lacking. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective, single-center observational study analyzed 40 patients undergoing PD and 29 patients undergoing DP (Clinical trial registry number UMIN000008122). Glucose tolerance, including insulin secretion (Δ C-peptide immunoreactivity, ΔCPR) and insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, HOMA-IR) were assessed before and 1 month after pancreatectomy using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and glucagon stimulation test. We assessed long-term hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in patients, with a follow-up time of 3 years. RESULTS: Percentages of patients diagnosed with abnormal OGTT decreased after PD (from 12 [30%] to 7 [17.5%] of 40 patients, p = 0.096); however, they increased after DP (from 4 [13.8%] to 8 [27.6%] of 29 patients, p = 0.103), although the changes were not statistically significant. ΔCPR decreased after both PD (from 3.2 to 1.0 ng/mL, p < 0.001) and DP (from 3.3 to 1.8 ng/mL, p < 0.001). HOMA-IR decreased after PD (from 1.10 to 0.68, p < 0.001), but did not change after DP (1.10 and 1.07, p = 0.42). Median HbA1c level was higher after DP than after PD for up to 3 years, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In comparisons of pre- and 1 month post-pancreatectomy data, glucose tolerance showed improvement after PD, whereas it worsened after DP. Insulin secretion decreased after both PD and DP. Insulin resistance improved after PD, but did not change after DP. Further studies are warranted to clarify mechanisms of improved insulin resistance after PD.

The Association of Smoking and Alcohol Abuse on Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Recurrent Acute or Chronic Pancreatitis Undergoing Total Pancreatectomy and Islet Autotransplantation: A Report From the Prospective Observational Study of TPIAT Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking and alcohol use are risk factors for acute and chronic pancreatitis, and their role on anxiety, depression, and opioid use in patients who undergo total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) is unknown. METHODS: We included adults enrolled in the Prospective Observational Study of TPIAT (POST). Measured variables included smoking (never, former, current) and alcohol abuse or dependency history (yes vs no). Using univariable and multivariable analyses, we investigated the association of smoking and alcohol dependency history with anxiety and depression, opioid use, and postsurgical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 195 adults studied, 25 were current smokers and 77 former smokers, whereas 18 had a history of alcohol dependency (of whom 10 were current smokers). A diagnosis of anxiety was associated with current smoking (P = 0.005), and depression was associated with history of alcohol abuse/dependency (P = 0.0001). However, active symptoms of anxiety and depression at the time of TPIAT were not associated with smoking or alcohol status. Opioid use in the past 14 days was associated with being a former smoker (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Active smoking and alcohol abuse history were associated with a diagnosis of anxiety and depression, respectively; however, at the time of TPIAT, symptom scores suggested that they were being addressed.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Postoperative day 1 combination of serum C-reactive protein and drain amylase values predicts risks of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. The "90-1000" score.

BACKGROUND: Several scoring systems predict risks of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy, but none have emerged as the gold standard. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of postoperative day 1 drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein levels in predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula compared with intraoperative pancreatic characteristics. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatectomy between 2017 and 2019 were included prospectively. Cutoff values were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves, and a score combining postoperative day 1 drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein was tested in a multivariate logistic regression model to evaluate clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk. RESULTS: A total of 274 pancreatic resections (182 pancreaticoduodenectomies and 92 distal pancreatectomies) were included. The pancreatic gland texture was "soft" in 47.8% (n = 131), and 55.8% (n = 153) had a small size main pancreatic duct (≤3 mm). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 58 patients (21.2%). Drain amylase ≥1,000 UI/L and serum C-reactive protein ≥90 mg/L were identified as the optimal cutoffs to predict clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. On multivariate analysis these cutoffs were independent predictors of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after both pancreaticoduodenectomies (drain amylase: P < .001, serum C-reactive protein: P = .006) and distal pancreatectomies (drain amylase: P = .009, serum C-reactive protein: P = .001). The postoperative day 1 "90-1000" model, a 2-value score relying on these cutoffs, significantly (P < .001) outperformed intraoperative pancreatic parenchymal characteristics in predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after both pancreaticoduodenectomies and distal pancreatectomies. A postoperative day 1 "90-1000" score = 0 had a negative predictive value of 97% and 94%, respectively, after pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomies. CONCLUSION: A combined score relying on postoperative day 1 values of drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein levels was accurate in predicting risks of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy.

Pancreatic resections: 30 and 90-day outcomes in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic tumors are frequently found in a geriatric population. Given that the median age of patients with pancreatic cancer is 70 years at diagnosis and the ubiquity of CT and MRI imaging has increased the detection of pancreas masses, pancreatic surgeons often find themselves operating on patients of advanced age. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of pancreatic resection in an octogenarian population at a single institution with a dedicated surgical oncology team. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing pancreatic resection over a 13-year period at an academic community cancer center. Patient characteristics and operative outcomes were compared between patients aged 80 and older, and those younger than 80. Student t-tests, Fisher's exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for univariate analyses. RESULTS: Over the 13-year period, a total of 48 patients of 403 undergoing pancreatic resections were aged 80 or older. Of these 48 patients, 35 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple) and 13 underwent distal pancreatectomy. Patient characteristics including ASA classification were similar among the two age groups. The procedures themselves were equally complicated with similar operative times, transfusion requirements, estimated blood losses, and portal vein resections. The number and severity of complications such as delayed gastric emptying and pancreatic leak were not statistically different between the two groups. Additionally, the 30-day reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates were not statistically different. Outcomes at 90-days revealed an increased rate of readmission amongst octogenarians who underwent Whipple without an increase in rates of major complications. The total number of deaths in the octogenarian group was 3 (6.2%) vs. 6 (1.7%) in the non-octogenarian group (p = 0.080). The median length of stay was similar amongst the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a large-volume academic community cancer center with a dedicated surgical oncology team, highly selected octogenarians can undergo pancreatic resection safely with outcomes that do not differ significantly from their younger counterparts.

Analysis of radiotherapy impact on survival in resected stage I/II pancreatic cancer patients: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The application of radiotherapy (RT) in pancreatic cancer remains controversial. AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiotherapy) for resectable I/II pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Fourteen thousand nine hundred seventy-seven patients with pancreatic cancer were identified from SEER database from 2004 to 2015. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors including RT on overall survival. Overall survival and overall mortality among the different groups were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Gray's test. RESULTS: Patients were divided into groups according to whether they received radiotherapy or not. The median survival time of all 14,977 patients without RT was 20 months, neoadjuvant RT was 24 months and adjuvant RT was 23 months (p < 0.0001). Median survival time of 2089 stage I patients without RT was 56 months, significantly longer than those with RT regardless of neoadjuvant or adjuvant RT (no RT: 56 months vs adjuvant RT: 37 months vs neoadjuvant RT: 27 months, P = 0.0039). Median survival time of 12,888 stage II patients with neoadjuvant RT was 24 months, adjuvant RT 22 months, significantly prolonged than those without radiotherapy (neoadjuvant RT: 24 months vs adjuvant RT: 22 months vs no RT: 17 months, P<0.0001). Neoadjuvant RT (HR = 1.434, P = 0.023, 95% CI: 1.051-1.957) was independent risk factors for prognosis of stage I patients, and adjuvant RT (HR = 0.904, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.861-0.950) predicted better outcomes for prognosis of stage II patients by multivariate analysis. The risk of cancer-related death caused by neoadjuvant RT in stage I and no-RT in stage II patients were significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a significant survival advantage for the use of adjuvant RT over surgery alone or neoadjuvant RT in treating stage II pancreatic cancer. RT was not associated with survival benifit in stage I patients.

Don't mess with the pancreas! A multicenter analysis of the management of low-grade pancreatic injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, level IV.

Assessment of Magnet status and Textbook Outcomes among medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepato-pancreatic surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital Magnet status recognition and postoperative outcomes following complex cancer surgery remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize Textbook Outcome (TO) rates among patients undergoing (HP) surgery for cancer in Magnet versus non-Magnet centers. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP surgery between 2015 and 2017 were identified. The association of postoperative TO (no complications/extended length-of-stay/90-day mortality/90-day readmission) with Magnet designation was examined after adjusting for competing risk factors. RESULTS: Among 10,997 patients, 21.3% (n = 2337) patients underwent surgery at Magnet hospitals (non-Magnet centers: 78.7%, n = 8660). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing HP surgery had comparable odds of achieving a TO at Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals (hepatectomy: odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.17; pancreatectomy-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06). Patients treated at hospitals with a high nurse-to-bed ratio had higher odds of achieving a TO irrespective of whether they received surgery at Magnet (high vs. low nurse-to-bed ratio; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.89) or non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Similarly, hospital HP volume was strongly associated with higher odds of TO following HP surgery in both Magnet (Leapfrog compliant vs. noncompliant; OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44) and non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11-1.26). CONCLUSION: Hospital Magnet designation was not an independent factor of superior outcomes after HP surgery. Rather, hospital-level factors such as nurse-to-bed ratio and HP procedural volume drove outcomes.

A National Assessment of Optimal Oncologic Surgery for Distal Pancreatic Adenocarcinomas.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to create a composite measure, optimal oncologic surgery (OOS), for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and identify factors associated with OOS. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2016. Patients were stratified based on receipt of OOS. Criteria for OOS included 90-day survival, no 30-day readmission, length of stay ≤7 days, negative resection margins, ≥12 lymph nodes harvested, and receipt of chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of OOS. Survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model were created to compare survival and identify risk factors for mortality. RESULTS: Three thousand five hundred forty-six patients were identified. The rate of OOS was 22.3%. Diagnosis after 2012, treatment at an academic medical center, and a minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) were associated with OOS. Survival was superior for patients undergoing OOS. Decreasing age at diagnosis, fewer comorbidities, surgery at an academic medical center, MIS, and lower pathologic stage were also associated with improved survival on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of OOS for distal pancreatectomy are low. Time trends show increasing rates of OOS that may be related to increasing MIS, adjuvant chemotherapy, and referrals to academic medical centers.

Utilization Rates of Pancreatectomy, Radical Prostatectomy, and Nephrectomy in New York, Ontario, and New South Wales, 2011 to 2018.

Importance: Few studies have compared surgical utilization between countries or how rates may differ according to patients' socioeconomic status. Objective: To compare population-level utilization of 3 common nonemergent surgical procedures in New York State (US), Ontario (Canada), and New South Wales (Australia) and how utilization differs for residents of lower- and higher-income neighborhoods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all adults aged 18 years and older who were hospitalized for pancreatectomy, radical prostatectomy, or nephrectomy between 2011 and 2016 in New York, between 2011 and 2018 in Ontario, and between 2013 and 2018 in New South Wales. Each patient's address of residence was linked to 2016 census data to ascertain neighborhood income. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) each jurisdiction's per capita age- and sex-standardized utilization rates (procedures per 100 000 residents per year) for each surgery and (2) utilization rates among residents of lower- and higher-income neighborhoods. Results: This study included 115 428 surgical patients (25 780 [22.3%] women); 5717, 21 752, and 24 617 patients in New York were hospitalized for pancreatectomy, radical prostatectomy, and nephrectomy, respectively; 4929, 19 125, and 16 916 patients in Ontario, respectively; and 2069, 13 499, and 6804 patients in New South Wales, respectively. Patients in New South Wales were older for all procedures (eg, radical prostatectomy, mean [SD] age in New South Wales, 64.8 [7.3] years; in New York, 62.7 [8.4] years; in Ontario, 62.8 [6.7] years; P < .001); patients in New York were more likely than those in other locations to be women for pancreatectomy (New York: 2926 [51.2%]; Ontario: 2372 [48.1%]; New South Wales, 1003 [48.5%]; P = .004) and nephrectomy (New York: 10 645 [43.2%]; Ontario: 6529 [38.6%]; 2605 [38.3%]; P < .001). With the exception of nephrectomy in Ontario, there was a higher annual utilization rate for all procedures in all jurisdictions among patients residing in affluent neighborhoods (quintile 5) compared with poorer neighborhoods (quintile 1). This difference was largest in New South Wales for pancreatectomy (4.65 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.28]; P < .001) and radical prostatectomy (73.46 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 1.20]; P < .001); largest in New York for nephrectomy (8.43 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.85]; P < .001) and smallest in New York for radical prostatectomy (19.70 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 2.63]; P < .001); and smallest in Ontario for pancreatectomy (1.15 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.28]; P < .001) and nephrectomy (-1.10 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.52]; P < .001). New York had the highest utilization of nephrectomy (28.93 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.18]) and New South Wales for had the highest utilization of pancreatectomy and radical prostatectomy (6.94 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.15] and 94.37 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.81], respectively; all P < .001). Utilization was lowest in Ontario for all procedures (pancreatectomy, 6.18 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.09]; radical prostatectomy, 49.24 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.36]; nephrectomy, 21.40 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.16]; all P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, New York and New South Wales had higher per capita surgical utilization and larger neighborhood income-utilization gradients than Ontario. These findings suggest that income-based disparities are larger in the United States and Australia and smaller in Canada and highlight trade-offs inherent in the health care systems of different countries.

Influence of the introduction of caseload requirements on indication for visceral cancer surgery in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 Swiss health authorities implemented annual hospital caseload requirements (CR) for five areas of visceral surgery. We assess the impact of the implementation of CR on indication for surgery in esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national registry data of all inpatient admissions between January 1st, 2005 and December 31st, 2015. Primary end-point was the age-adjusted resection rate for esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer among patients with at least one cancer-specific hospitalization per year. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios for period effects before and after implementation of CR and odds ratios (OR) based on a generalized estimation equation. A relative increase of 5% in age-adjusted relative risk was set a priori as relevant from a health policy perspective. RESULTS: Age-adjusted resection rates before and after the implementation of CR were 0.12 and 0.13 (Relative Risk [RR] 1.08; 95%-Confidence Interval [CI] 0.85-1.36) in esophageal cancer, 0.22 and 0.26 (RR 1.17; 95%-CI 0.85-1.58) in pancreatic cancer and 0.38 and 0.43 (RR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.99-1.30) in rectal cancer. In adjusted models OR for resection after the implementation of CR were 1.40 (95%-CI 1.24-1.58) in esophageal cancer, 1.05 (95%-CI 0.96-1.15) in pancreatic cancer and 0.92 (95%-CI 0.87-0.97) in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CR was associated with an increase of resection rates above the a priori set margins in all resections groups. In adjusted models, odds for resection were significantly higher for esophageal cancer, while they remained unchanged for pancreatic and decreased for rectal cancer.

Use of Transumbilical Incision as an Organ Removal Site in Laparoscopic Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate complications and risk factors associated with transumbilical incision as an organ removal site in laparoscopic pancreatectomy (LP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 52 patients who underwent LP between 2009 and 2017 were included in this study. The development of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and transumbilical port-site incisional hernia was recorded. RESULTS: None of the patients had SSI. However, three (5.77%) presented with transumbilical incisional hernia. No variables were significantly associated with the risk of transumbilical incisional hernia. CONCLUSION: No evident risk factors correlated with hernia formation. Hence, incisional hernia might have occurred at a certain probability. In some cases, it was caused by technical problems. However, the use of transumbilical incision as an organ removal site was feasible, and a new incision for organ removal alone was not required.

The use and clinical outcome of total pancreatectomy in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Total pancreatectomy has high morbidity and mortality and differences among countries are currently unknown. This study compared the use and postoperative outcomes of total pancreatectomy among 4 Western countries. METHODS: Patients who underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy were included from registries in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2018). Use of total pancreatectomy was assessed by calculating the ratio total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy. Primary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien Dindo ≥3) and in-hospital mortality. Predictors for the primary outcomes were assessed in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of volume (low-volume <40 or high-volume ≥40 pancreatoduodenectomies annually; data available for the Netherlands and Germany). RESULTS: In total, 1,579 patients underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy. The relative use of total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy varied up to fivefold (United States 0.03, Germany 0.15, the Netherlands 0.03, and Sweden 0.15; P < .001). Both the indication and several baseline characteristics differed significantly among countries. Major morbidity occurred in 423 patients (26.8%) and differed (22.3%, 34.9%, 38.3%, and 15.9%, respectively; P < .001). In-hospital mortality occurred in 85 patients (5.4%) and also differed (1.8%, 10.2%, 10.8%, 1.9%, respectively; P < .001). Country, age ≥75, and vascular resection were predictors for in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was lower in high-volume centers in the Netherlands (4.9% vs 23.1%; P = .002), but not in Germany (9.8% vs 10.6%; P = .733). CONCLUSION: Considerable differences in the use of total pancreatectomy, patient characteristics, and postoperative outcome were noted among 4 Western countries with better outcomes in the United States and Sweden. These large, yet unexplained, differences require further research to ultimately improve patient outcome.

Effect of centralization and regionalization of pancreatic surgery on resection rates and survival.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery in the Netherlands has been ongoing since 2011. The aim of this study was to assess how centralization has affected the likelihood of resection and survival of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic head and periampullary cancer, diagnosed in hospitals with and without pancreatic surgery services. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed on nationwide data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2009-2017), including patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic head or periampullary cancer. The period of diagnosis was divided into three time intervals: 2009-2011, 2012-2014 and 2015-2017. Hospital of diagnosis was classified as a pancreatic or non-pancreatic surgery centre. Analyses were performed using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. RESULTS: In total, 10 079 patients were included, of whom 3114 (30.9 per cent) were diagnosed in pancreatic surgery centres. Between 2009-2011 and 2015-2017, the number of patients undergoing resection increased from 1267 of 3169 (40.0 per cent) to 1705 of 3566 (47.8 per cent) (P for trend < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, in 2015-2017, unlike the previous periods, patients diagnosed in pancreatic and non-pancreatic surgery centres had a similar likelihood of resection (odds ratio 1.08, 95 per cent c.i. 0.90 to 1.28; P = 0.422). In this period, however, overall survival was higher in patients diagnosed in pancreatic surgery than in those diagnosed in non-pancreatic surgery centres (hazard ratio 0.92, 95 per cent c.i. 0.85 to 0.99; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: After centralization of pancreatic surgery, the resection rate for patients with pancreatic head and periampullary cancer diagnosed in non-pancreatic surgery centres increased and became similar to that in pancreatic surgery centres. Overall survival remained higher in patients diagnosed in pancreatic surgery centres.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

A novel risk factor panel predicts early recurrence in resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are indolent pancreatic tumors derived from neuroendocrine cells in pancreatic islets. To date, reliable predictors for identifying patients at high risk for recurrence after curative cancer resection are lacking. We aimed to determine independent predictors for high-risk PanNETs and patient outcomes after surgery. METHODS: We analyzed relevant clinicopathological parameters in 319 consecutive patients of derivation cohort 1 and 106 patients of validation cohort 2 who underwent pancreatectomy and were diagnosed with PanNETs. Association of tumor characteristics with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Cox regression. RESULTS: PanNET grade 3 (G3), pancreatic duct dilatation, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors for RFS and were significantly associated with early recurrence (within 1.5 years) of PanNETs after curative resection (P = 0.019, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). Using these factors, we established a novel risk factor panel (R-panel), which predicted early recurrence (P < 0.001, HR = 15.02, 95% CI 5.76-39.19). Predictive accuracy of this R-panel was favorable, with a C-index of 0.853, higher than AJCC TNM staging (0.713). We further built an integrated staging system combining R-panel scoring and TNM staging, which improved predictive probability of TNM staging. Finally, we showed that adjuvant therapy with long-acting somatostatin analogs (SSAs) significantly reduced postoperative recurrence (P < 0.001) and prolonged long-term survival (P = 0.021) in patients with the above risk factors. CONCLUSION: We identified a novel risk factor panel, which includes PanNET G3, pancreatic duct dilatation, and perineural invasion; this panel predicted early recurrence of PanNETs after curative resection. Patients with these risk factors can benefit from adjuvant therapy with SSAs.