Search

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To establish an evidence-based cutoff and predictors for early recurrence in patients with resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: It is unclear how many and which patients develop early recurrence after LAPC resection. Surgery in these patients is probably of little benefit. METHODS: We analyzed all consecutive patients undergoing resection of LAPC after induction chemotherapy who were included in prospective databases in The Netherlands (2015-2019) and the Johns Hopkins Hospital (2016-2018). The optimal definition for "early recurrence" was determined by the post-recurrence survival (PRS). Patients were compared for overall survival (OS). Predictors for early recurrence were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 168 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 28 months, recurrence was observed in 118 patients (70.2%). The optimal cutoff for recurrence-free survival to differentiate between early (n=52) and late recurrence (n=66) was 6 months ( P <0.001). OS was 8.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.3-9.6] in the early recurrence group (n=52) versus 31.1 months (95% CI: 25.7-36.4) in the late/no recurrence group (n=116) ( P <0.001). A preoperative predictor for early recurrence was postinduction therapy carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9≥100 U/mL [odds ratio (OR)=4.15, 95% CI: 1.75-9.84, P =0.001]. Postoperative predictors were poor tumor differentiation (OR=4.67, 95% CI: 1.83-11.90, P =0.001) and no adjuvant chemotherapy (OR=6.04, 95% CI: 2.43-16.55, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrence was observed in one third of patients after LAPC resection and was associated with poor survival. Patients with post-induction therapy CA 19-9 ≥100 U/mL, poor tumor differentiation and no adjuvant therapy were especially at risk. This information is valuable for patient counseling before and after resection of LAPC.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of individual complications on mortality, organ failure, hospital stay, and readmission after pancreatoduodenectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An initial complication may provoke a sequence of adverse events potentially leading to mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study was conducted to aid prioritization of quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (2014-2017) were extracted from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Population attributable fractions (PAF) were calculated for the association of each complication (ie, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, and pneumonia) with each unfavorable outcome [ie, in-hospital mortality, organ failure, prolonged hospital stay (>75th percentile), and unplanned readmission), whereas adjusting for confounders and other complications. The PAF represents the proportion of an outcome that could be prevented if a complication would be eliminated completely. RESULTS: Overall, 2620 patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality occurred in 95 patients (3.6%), organ failure in 198 patients (7.6%), and readmission in 427 patients (16.2%). Postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage had the greatest independent impact on mortality [PAF 25.7% (95% CI 13.4-37.9) and 32.8% (21.9-43.8), respectively] and organ failure [PAF 21.8% (95% CI 12.9-30.6) and 22.1% (15.0-29.1), respectively]. Delayed gastric emptying had the greatest independent impact on prolonged hospital stay [PAF 27.6% (95% CI 23.5-31.8)]. The impact of individual complications on unplanned readmission was smaller than 11%. CONCLUSION: Interventions focusing on postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage may have the greatest impact on in-hospital mortality and organ failure. To prevent prolonged hospital stay, initiatives should in addition focus

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, end

Contains fulltext : 288480.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, end

Contains fulltext : 251531.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of individual complications on mortality, organ failure, hospital stay, and readmission after pancreatoduodenectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An initial complication may provoke a sequence of adverse events potentially leading to mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study was conducted to aid prioritization of quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (2014-2017) were extracted from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Population attributable fractions (PAF) were calculated for the association of each complication (ie, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, and pneumonia) with each unfavorable outcome [ie, in-hospital mortality, organ failure, prolonged hospital stay (>75th percentile), and unplanned readmission), whereas adjusting for confounders and other complications. The PAF represents the proportion of an outcome that could be prevented if a complication would be eliminated completely. RESULTS: Overall, 2620 patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality occurred in 95 patients (3.6%), organ failure in 198 patients (7.6%), and readmission in 427 patients (16.2%). Postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage had the greatest independent impact on mortality [PAF 25.7% (95% CI 13.4-37.9) and 32.8% (21.9-43.8), respectively] and organ failure [PAF 21.8% (95% CI 12.9-30.6) and 22.1% (15.0-29.1), respectively]. Delayed gastric emptying had the greatest independent impact on prolonged hospital stay [PAF 27.6% (95% CI 23.5-31.8)]. The impact of individual complications on unplanned readmission was smaller than 11%. CONCLUSION: Interventions focusing on postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage may have the greatest impact on in-hospital mortality and organ failure. To prevent prolonged hospital stay, initiatives should in addition focus

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. METHODS: An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as co

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Contains fulltext : 239076.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: This study compared median OS after resection of LAPC after upfront FOLFIRINOX versus a propensity-score matched cohort of LAPC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only (ie, without resection). BACKGROUND: Because the introduction of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, increased resection rates in LAPC patients have been reported, with improved OS. Some studies have also reported promising OS with FOLFIRINOX-only treatment in LAPC. Multicenter studies assessing the survival benefit associated with resection of LAPC versus patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only are lacking. METHODS: Patients with non-progressive LAPC after 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX treatment, both with and without resection, were included from a prospective multicenter cohort in 16 centers (April 2015-December 2019). Cox regression analysis identified predictors for OS. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to obtain a matched cohort of patients with and without resection. These patients were compared for OS. RESULTS: Overall, 293 patients with LAPC were included, of whom 89 underwent a resection. Resection was associated with improved OS (24 vs 15 months, P < 0.01), as compared to patients without resection. Before PSM, resection, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response were predictors for OS. After PSM, resection remained associated with improved OS [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.344, 95% confidence interval (0.222-0.534), P < 0.01], with an OS of 24 versus 15 months, as compared to patients without resection. Resection of LAPC was associated with improved 3-year OS (31% vs 11%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC after FOLFIRINOX was associated with increased OS and 3-year survival, as compared to propensity-score matched patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only.

Contains fulltext : 239075.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Although Bismuth-Corlette (BC) type 4 perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is no longer considered a contraindication for curative surgery, few data are available from Western series to indicate the outcomes for these patients. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for patients with BC type 4 versus BC types 2 and 3 pCCA undergoing surgical resection using a multi-institutional international database. METHODS: Uni- and multivariable analyses of patients undergoing surgery at 20 Western centers for BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and BC type 4 pCCA. RESULTS: Among 1138 pCCA patients included in the study, 826 (73%) had BC type 2 or 3 disease and 312 (27%) had type 4 disease. The two groups demonstrated significant differences in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics (i.e., portal vein embolization, extended hepatectomy, and positive margin). The incidence of severe complications was 46% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 51% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.1). Moreover, the 90-day mortality was 13% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 12% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.57). Lymph-node metastasis (N1; hazard-ratio [HR], 1.62), positive margins (R1; HR, 1.36), perineural invasion (HR, 1.53), and poor grade of differentiation (HR, 1.25) were predictors of survival (all p ≤0.004), but BC type was not associated with prognosis. Among the N0 and R0 patients, the 5-year overall survival was 43% for the patients with BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and 41% for those with BC type 4 pCCA (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large Western multi-institutional cohort, resection was shown to be an acceptable curative treatment option for selected patients with BC type 4 pCCA although a more technically challenging surgical approach was required.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: A radical left pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may require extended, multivisceral resections. The role of a laparoscopic approach in extended radical left pancreatectomy (ERLP) is unclear since comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after laparoscopic vs open ERLP in patients with PDAC. METHODS: An international multicenter propensity-score matched study including patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open ERLP (L-ERLP; O-ERLP) for PDAC was performed (2007-2015). The ISGPS definition for extended resection was used. Primary outcomes were overall survival, margin negative rate (R0), and lymph node retrieval. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 320 patients underwent ERLP in 34 centers from 12 countries (65 L-ERLP vs. 255 O-ERLP). After propensity-score matching, 44 L-ERLP could be matched to 44 O-ERLP. In the matched cohort, the conversion rate in L-ERLP group was 35%. The L-ERLP R0 resection rate (matched cohort) was comparable to O-ERLP (67% vs 48%; P = 0.063) but the lymph node yield was lower for L-ERLP than O-ERLP (median 11 vs 19, P = 0.023). L-ERLP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying (0% vs 16%, P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs 13 days, P = 0.005), as compared to O-ERLP. Outcomes were comparable for additional organ resections, vascular resections (besides splenic vessels), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, or 90-day mortality (2% vs 2%, P = 0.973). The median overall survival was comparable between both groups (19 vs 20 months, P = 0.571). Conversion did not worsen outcomes in L-ERLP. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach may be used safely in selected patients requiring ERLP for PDAC, since morbidity, mortality, and overall survival seem comparable, as compared to O-ERLP. L-ERLP is associated with a high conversion rate and reduced lymph node yield but also with less delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay, as co

Contains fulltext : 239076.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: This study compared median OS after resection of LAPC after upfront FOLFIRINOX versus a propensity-score matched cohort of LAPC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only (ie, without resection). BACKGROUND: Because the introduction of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, increased resection rates in LAPC patients have been reported, with improved OS. Some studies have also reported promising OS with FOLFIRINOX-only treatment in LAPC. Multicenter studies assessing the survival benefit associated with resection of LAPC versus patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only are lacking. METHODS: Patients with non-progressive LAPC after 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX treatment, both with and without resection, were included from a prospective multicenter cohort in 16 centers (April 2015-December 2019). Cox regression analysis identified predictors for OS. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to obtain a matched cohort of patients with and without resection. These patients were compared for OS. RESULTS: Overall, 293 patients with LAPC were included, of whom 89 underwent a resection. Resection was associated with improved OS (24 vs 15 months, P < 0.01), as compared to patients without resection. Before PSM, resection, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response were predictors for OS. After PSM, resection remained associated with improved OS [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.344, 95% confidence interval (0.222-0.534), P < 0.01], with an OS of 24 versus 15 months, as compared to patients without resection. Resection of LAPC was associated with improved 3-year OS (31% vs 11%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC after FOLFIRINOX was associated with increased OS and 3-year survival, as compared to propensity-score matched patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only.

Contains fulltext : 245527.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Contains fulltext : 239075.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Although Bismuth-Corlette (BC) type 4 perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is no longer considered a contraindication for curative surgery, few data are available from Western series to indicate the outcomes for these patients. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for patients with BC type 4 versus BC types 2 and 3 pCCA undergoing surgical resection using a multi-institutional international database. METHODS: Uni- and multivariable analyses of patients undergoing surgery at 20 Western centers for BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and BC type 4 pCCA. RESULTS: Among 1138 pCCA patients included in the study, 826 (73%) had BC type 2 or 3 disease and 312 (27%) had type 4 disease. The two groups demonstrated significant differences in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics (i.e., portal vein embolization, extended hepatectomy, and positive margin). The incidence of severe complications was 46% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 51% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.1). Moreover, the 90-day mortality was 13% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 12% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.57). Lymph-node metastasis (N1; hazard-ratio [HR], 1.62), positive margins (R1; HR, 1.36), perineural invasion (HR, 1.53), and poor grade of differentiation (HR, 1.25) were predictors of survival (all p ≤0.004), but BC type was not associated with prognosis. Among the N0 and R0 patients, the 5-year overall survival was 43% for the patients with BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and 41% for those with BC type 4 pCCA (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large Western multi-institutional cohort, resection was shown to be an acceptable curative treatment option for selected patients with BC type 4 pCCA although a more technically challenging surgical approach was required.

Contains fulltext : 239075.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Although Bismuth-Corlette (BC) type 4 perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is no longer considered a contraindication for curative surgery, few data are available from Western series to indicate the outcomes for these patients. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for patients with BC type 4 versus BC types 2 and 3 pCCA undergoing surgical resection using a multi-institutional international database. METHODS: Uni- and multivariable analyses of patients undergoing surgery at 20 Western centers for BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and BC type 4 pCCA. RESULTS: Among 1138 pCCA patients included in the study, 826 (73%) had BC type 2 or 3 disease and 312 (27%) had type 4 disease. The two groups demonstrated significant differences in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics (i.e., portal vein embolization, extended hepatectomy, and positive margin). The incidence of severe complications was 46% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 51% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.1). Moreover, the 90-day mortality was 13% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 12% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.57). Lymph-node metastasis (N1; hazard-ratio [HR], 1.62), positive margins (R1; HR, 1.36), perineural invasion (HR, 1.53), and poor grade of differentiation (HR, 1.25) were predictors of survival (all p ≤0.004), but BC type was not associated with prognosis. Among the N0 and R0 patients, the 5-year overall survival was 43% for the patients with BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and 41% for those with BC type 4 pCCA (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large Western multi-institutional cohort, resection was shown to be an acceptable curative treatment option for selected patients with BC type 4 pCCA although a more technically challenging surgical approach was required.

Contains fulltext : 239076.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: This study compared median OS after resection of LAPC after upfront FOLFIRINOX versus a propensity-score matched cohort of LAPC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only (ie, without resection). BACKGROUND: Because the introduction of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, increased resection rates in LAPC patients have been reported, with improved OS. Some studies have also reported promising OS with FOLFIRINOX-only treatment in LAPC. Multicenter studies assessing the survival benefit associated with resection of LAPC versus patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only are lacking. METHODS: Patients with non-progressive LAPC after 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX treatment, both with and without resection, were included from a prospective multicenter cohort in 16 centers (April 2015-December 2019). Cox regression analysis identified predictors for OS. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to obtain a matched cohort of patients with and without resection. These patients were compared for OS. RESULTS: Overall, 293 patients with LAPC were included, of whom 89 underwent a resection. Resection was associated with improved OS (24 vs 15 months, P < 0.01), as compared to patients without resection. Before PSM, resection, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response were predictors for OS. After PSM, resection remained associated with improved OS [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.344, 95% confidence interval (0.222-0.534), P < 0.01], with an OS of 24 versus 15 months, as compared to patients without resection. Resection of LAPC was associated with improved 3-year OS (31% vs 11%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of LAPC after FOLFIRINOX was associated with increased OS and 3-year survival, as compared to propensity-score matched patients treated with FOLFIRINOX-only.

Contains fulltext : 245527.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Contains fulltext : 204749.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance.

Contains fulltext : 204749.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance.

Contains fulltext : 204749.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance.