RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite differences in tumour behaviour and characteristics between duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), the intestinal (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary (AmpPB) subtype of ampullary adenocarcinoma and distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) on these cancers, as well as the optimal ACT regimen, has not been comprehensively assessed. This study aims to assess the influence of tailored ACT on DAC, dCCA, AmpIT, and AmpPB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinoma were identified and collected from 36 tertiary centres between 2010 - 2021. Per non-pancreatic periampullary tumour type, the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy and the main relevant regimens of adjuvant chemotherapy were compared. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included a total of 2866 patients with DAC (n = 330), AmpIT (n = 765), AmpPB (n = 819), and dCCA (n = 952). Among them, 1329 received ACT, and 1537 did not. ACT was associated with significant improvement in OS for AmpPB (P = 0.004) and dCCA (P < 0.001). Moreover, for patients with dCCA, capecitabine mono ACT provided the greatest OS benefit compared to gemcitabine (P = 0.004) and gemcitabine - cisplatin (P = 0.001). For patients with AmpPB, no superior ACT regime was found (P > 0.226). ACT was not associated with improved OS for DAC and AmpIT (P = 0.113 and P = 0.445, respectively). DISCUSSION: Patients with resected AmpPB and dCCA appear to benefit from ACT. While the optimal ACT for AmpPB remains undetermined, it appears that dCCA shows the most favourable response to capecitabine monotherapy. Tailored adjuvant treatments are essential for enhancing prognosis across all four non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Duodenais , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Quimioterapia Adjuvante , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Neoplasias Duodenais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Duodenais/patologia , Neoplasias Duodenais/cirurgia , Colangiocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Colangiocarcinoma/patologia , Colangiocarcinoma/cirurgia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Ampola Hepatopancreática/patologia , Pancreaticoduodenectomia , Estudos de Coortes , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/patologia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/mortalidade , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/patologia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Capecitabina/uso terapêutico , Capecitabina/administração & dosagemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma , Ampola Hepatopancreática , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco , Neoplasias Duodenais , Excisão de Linfonodo , Metástase Linfática , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Pancreaticoduodenectomia , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ampola Hepatopancreática/patologia , Ampola Hepatopancreática/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/patologia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/cirurgia , Neoplasias Duodenais/patologia , Neoplasias Duodenais/cirurgia , Masculino , Feminino , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Adenocarcinoma/secundário , Colangiocarcinoma/cirurgia , Colangiocarcinoma/patologia , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Seguimentos , Linfonodos/patologia , Linfonodos/cirurgia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/patologia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/cirurgia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirurgia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patologia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/secundárioRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cancer arising in the periampullary region can be anatomically classified in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), and ampullary carcinoma. Based on histopathology, ampullary carcinoma is currently subdivided in intestinal (AmpIT), pancreatobiliary (AmpPB), and mixed subtypes. Despite close anatomical resemblance, it is unclear how ampullary subtypes relate to the remaining periampullary cancers in tumor characteristics and behavior. METHODS: This international cohort study included patients after curative intent resection for periampullary cancer retrieved from 44 centers (from Europe, United States, Asia, Australia, and Canada) between 2010 and 2021. Preoperative CA19-9, pathology outcomes and 8-year overall survival were compared between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, dCCA, and PDAC. RESULTS: Overall, 3809 patients were analyzed, including 348 DAC, 774 AmpIT, 848 AmpPB, 1,036 dCCA, and 803 PDAC. The highest 8-year overall survival was found in patients with AmpIT and DAC (49.8% and 47.9%), followed by AmpPB (34.9%, P < 0.001), dCCA (26.4%, P = 0.020), and finally PDAC (12.9%, P < 0.001). A better survival was correlated with lower CA19-9 levels but not with tumor size, as DAC lesions showed the largest size. CONCLUSIONS: Despite close anatomic relations of the five periampullary cancers, this study revealed differences in preoperative blood markers, pathology, and long-term survival. More tumor characteristics are shared between DAC and AmpIT and between AmpPB and dCCA than between the two ampullary subtypes. Instead of using collective definitions for "periampullary cancers" or anatomical classification, this study emphasizes the importance of individual evaluation of each histopathological subtype with the ampullary subtypes as individual entities in future studies.
Assuntos
Ampola Hepatopancreática , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Colangiocarcinoma , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco , Neoplasias Duodenais , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Ampola Hepatopancreática/patologia , Ampola Hepatopancreática/cirurgia , Taxa de Sobrevida , Neoplasias Duodenais/patologia , Neoplasias Duodenais/cirurgia , Idoso , Colangiocarcinoma/patologia , Colangiocarcinoma/cirurgia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/patologia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/patologia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Ducto Colédoco/mortalidade , Seguimentos , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/patologia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/cirurgia , Prognóstico , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Most patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone surgical resection eventually develop disease recurrence. |This study aimed to investigate whether there is evidence to support routine surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery, with a secondary aim of analyzing the implementation of surveillance strategies in the Nordic countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify clinical practice guidelines globally and research studies relating to surveillance after pancreatic cancer resection. This was followed by a survey among 20 pancreatic units from four Nordic countries to assess their current practice of follow-up for operated patients. RESULTS: Altogether 16 clinical practice guidelines and 17 research studies were included. The guidelines provided inconsistent recommendations regarding postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer. The clinical research data were mainly based on retrospective cohort studies with low level of evidence and lead-time bias was not addressed. Active surveillance was recommended in Sweden and Denmark, but not in Norway beyond the post-operative/adjuvant period. Finland had no national recommendations for surveillance. The Nordic survey revealed a wide variation in reported practice among the different units. About 75% (15 of 20 units) performed routine postoperative surveillance. Routine CA 19-9 testing was used by 80% and routine CT by 67% as part of surveillance. About 73% of centers continued follow-up until 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Evidence for routine long-term (i.e. 5 years) surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery remains limited. Most pancreatic units in the Nordic countries conduct regular follow-up, but protocols vary.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective observational study was to investigate the geographical or sex differences in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) in terms of assessment by a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT), curative treatment, and overall survival. METHOD: All sCRLM patients in the South-East Health Care Region of Sweden from 2009 to 2015 were included (n = 615). Data were derived from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry, Swedish Registry of Liver and Bile Surgery and medical records. RESULTS: Patients who had a hepatobiliary unit (HBU) at the nearest hospital were more likely to undergo liver surgery (HBU+, 37% (n = 106), compared to HBU-, 22% (n = 60); p = 0.001) and had a better median survival (p < 0.001). No sex differences were observed. In multivariate Cox regression analyses of overall survival, assessment by an MDT that included a liver surgeon was independently linked to better survival (HR 0.574, 0.433-0.760). CONCLUSION: There were no sex differences in access to liver surgery or overall survival, however, there were geographical inequalities, where residency near a hospital with HBU was associated with increased overall survival and the possibility to receive liver surgery. Assessment at MDT with liver surgeon present was associated with greater survival, indicating its important role for treatment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on the definition of upfront resectability and use of perioperative systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This survey aimed to summarize the current treatment strategies for upfront resectable CRLM throughout Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association to gain insight into the current views on resectability and the use of systemic therapy for upfront resectable CRLM. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 87 surgeons from 24 countries. The resectability of CRLM is mostly based on the volume of the future liver remnant, while considering tumor biology. Thermal ablation was considered as an acceptable adjunct to resection in parenchymal-sparing CRLM surgery by 77 % of the respondents. A total of 40.2 % of the respondents preferred standard perioperative systemic therapy and 24.1 % preferred standard upfront local treatment. CONCLUSION: Among the participating European hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons, there is a high degree of consensus on the definition of CRLM resectability. However, there is much variety in the use of adjunctive thermal ablation. Major variations persist in the use of perioperative systemic therapy in cases of upfront resectable CRLM, stressing the need for further evidence and a consensus.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Hepatectomia , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Padrões de Prática Médica , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundário , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Europa (Continente) , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Resultado do Tratamento , Consenso , Quimioterapia Adjuvante , Técnicas de Ablação , Terapia NeoadjuvanteRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile ducts (IPNB) is a rare disease in Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare tumor characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes between Western and Eastern patients who underwent surgical resection for IPNB. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective series of patients with IPNB undergoing surgery between January 2010 and December 2020 was gathered under the auspices of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA), and at Nagoya University Hospital, Japan. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (51% male; median age 66 years) from 28 E-AHPBA centers were compared to 91 patients (64% male; median age 71 years) from Nagoya. Patients in Europe had more multiple lesions (23% vs 2%, P < .001), less invasive carcinoma (42% vs 85%, P < .001), and more intrahepatic tumors (52% vs 24%, P < .001) than in Nagoya. Patients in Europe experienced less 90-day grade >3 Clavien-Dindo complications (33% vs 68%, P < .001), but higher 90-day mortality rate (7.0% vs 0%, P = .03). R0 resections (81% vs 82%) were similar. Overall survival, excluding 90-day postoperative deaths, was similar in both regions. DISCUSSION: Despite performing more extensive resections, the low perioperative mortality rate observed in Nagoya was probably influenced by a combination of patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related factors.
Assuntos
Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares , Ductos Biliares Intra-Hepáticos , Humanos , Masculino , Idoso , Feminino , Ductos Biliares Intra-Hepáticos/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Japão/epidemiologia , Doenças Raras/patologia , Neoplasias dos Ductos Biliares/patologia , Ductos Biliares/patologiaRESUMO
This pilot study aimed to evaluate if peak VO2 and ventilatory efficiency in combination would improve preoperative risk stratification beyond only relying on peak VO2 . This was a single-center retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) as part of preoperative risk evaluation before major upper abdominal surgery during years 2008-2021. The primary outcome was any major cardiopulmonary complication during hospitalization. Forty-nine patients had a preoperative CPET before decision to pursue to surgery (cancer in esophagus [n = 18], stomach [6], pancreas [16], or liver [9]). Twenty-five were selected for operation. Patients who suffered any major cardiopulmonary complication had lower ventilatory efficiency (i.e., higher VE/VCO2 slope, 37.3 vs. 29.7, p = 0.031) compared to those without complications. In patients with a low aerobic capacity (i.e., peak VO2 < 20 mL/kg/min) and a VE/VCO2 slope ≥ 39, 80% developed a major cardiopulmonary complication. In this pilot study of patients with preoperative CPET before major upper abdominal surgery, patients who experienced a major cardiopulmonary complication had significantly lower ventilatory efficiency compared to those who did not. A low aerobic capacity in combination with low ventilatory efficiency was associated with a very high risk (80%) of having a major cardiopulmonary complication.
Assuntos
Teste de Esforço , Consumo de Oxigênio , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Projetos Piloto , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco , OxigênioRESUMO
Objective: This is a preplanned, health economic evaluation from the LIGRO trial. One hundred patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and standardized future liver remnant <30% were randomized to associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) or two-staged hepatectomy (TSH). Summary Background Data: TSH, is an established method in advanced CRLM. ALPPS has emerged providing improved resection rate and survival. The health care costs and health outcomes, combining health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of ALPPS and TSH have not previously been evaluated and compared. Methods: Costs and QALYs were compared from treatment start up to 2 years. Costs are estimated from resource use, including all surgical interventions, length of stay after interventions, diagnostic procedures and chemotherapy, and applying Swedish unit costs. QALYs were estimated by combining survival and HRQoL data, the latter being assessed with EQ-5D 3L. Estimated costs and QALYs for each treatment strategy were combined into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess the joint distribution of incremental costs and QALYs. Results: The mean cost difference between ALPPS and TSH was 12,662, [95% confidence interval (CI): -10,728-36,051; P = 0.283]. Corresponding mean difference in life years and QALYs was 0.1296 (95% CI: -0.12-0.38; P = 0.314) and 0.1285 (95% CI: -0.11-0.36; P = 0.28), respectively. The ICER was 93,186 and 92,414 for QALYs and life years as outcomes, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the 2-year data, the cost-effectiveness of ALPPS is uncertain. Further research, exploring cost and health outcomes beyond 2 years is needed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirurgia , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/tratamento farmacológico , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Pancreatectomia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Pancreaticoduodenectomia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Multicêntricos como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. METHODS: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014-2020 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159-2.300, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Irinotecano/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Oxaliplatina/uso terapêutico , Leucovorina/efeitos adversos , Terapia Neoadjuvante/efeitos adversos , Capecitabina , Gencitabina , Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Fluoruracila/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirurgiaRESUMO
This international multicenter cohort study included 30 centers. Patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), intestinal-type (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary-type (AmpPB) ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b≥), clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 3622 patients were included in the study (370 DAC, 811 AmpIT, 895 AmpPB, 1083 dCCA, and 463 PDAC). Mortality rates were comparable between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, and dCCA (ranging from 3.7% to 5.9%), while lower for PDAC (1.5%, p = 0.013). Major morbidity rate was the lowest in PDAC (4.4%) and the highest for DAC (19.9%, p < 0.001). The highest rates of CR-POPF were observed in DAC (27.3%), AmpIT (25.5%), and dCCA (27.6%), which were significantly higher compared to AmpPB (18.5%, p = 0.001) and PDAC (8.3%, p < 0.001). The shortest LOS was found in PDAC (11 d vs. 14-15 d, p < 0.001). Discussion: In conclusion, this study shows significant variations in perioperative mortality, post-operative complications, and hospital stay among different periampullary cancers, and between the ampullary subtypes. Further research should assess the biological characteristics and tissue reactions associated with each type of periampullary cancer, including subtypes, in order to improve patient management and personalized treatment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring 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. PATIENTS 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 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 with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, 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 greater than 25 kg/m 2 , 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 fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
Assuntos
Laparoscopia , Pancreatectomia , Sistema de Registros , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Humanos , Pancreatectomia/métodos , Pancreatectomia/mortalidade , Pancreatectomia/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/mortalidade , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/efeitos adversos , Laparoscopia/métodos , Laparoscopia/mortalidade , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Europa (Continente) , Estudos Retrospectivos , Idoso , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , AdultoRESUMO
Objective: The aim of tis study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary background data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary. Results:After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: These IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.