Search

Objective: To use the concept of benchmarking to establish robust and standardized outcome references after pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD)., Background: Best achievable results after PD are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons among different cohorts, centers or with novel surgical techniques remain speculative., Methods: This multicenter study analyzes consecutive patients (2012-2015) undergoing PD in 23 international expert centers in pancreas surgery. Outcomes in patients without significant comorbidities and major vascular resection (benchmark cases) were analyzed to establish 20 outcome benchmarks for PD. These benchmarks were tested in a cohort with a poorer preoperative physical status (ASA class ≥3) and a cohort treated by minimally invasive approaches., Results: Two thousand three hundred seventy-five (38%) low-risk cases out of a total of 6186 PDs were analyzed, disclosing low in-hospital mortality (≤1.6%) but high morbidity, with a 73% benchmark morbidity rate cumulated within 6 months following surgery. Benchmark cutoffs for pancreatic fistulas (B-C), severe complications (≥ grade 3), and failure-to-rescue rate were 19%, 30%, and 9%, respectively. The ASA ≥3 cohort showed comparable morbidity but a higher in hospital-mortality (3% vs 1.6%) and failure-to-rescue rate (16% vs 9%) than the benchmarks. The proportion of benchmark cases performed varied greatly across centers and continents for both open (9%-93%) and minimally invasive (11%-62%) PD. Centers operating mostly on complex PD cases disclosed better results than those with a majority of low-risk cases., Conclusion: The proposed outcome benchmarks for PD, established in a large-scale international patient cohort and tested in 2 different cohorts, may allow for meaningful comparisons between different patient cohorts, centers, countries, and surgical techniques.

Objective: To establish an international core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) selected by both patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) from the United States (US), Europe, and Asia., Summary Background Data: PROs are increasingly recognized in pancreatic cancer studies. There is no consensus on which of the many available PROs are most important., Methods: A multicenter Delphi study among patients with pancreatic cancer (curative- and palliative-setting) and HCPs in 6 pancreatic centers in the US (Baltimore, Boston), Europe (Amsterdam, Verona), and Asia (Mumbai, Seoul) was performed. In round 1, participants rated the importance of 56 PROs on a 1 to 9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (scores 7-9) by the majority (≥80%) of curative- and/or palliative-patients as well as HCPs were included in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria were presented again in round 2, together with feedback on individual and group ratings. Remaining PROs were ranked based on the importance ratings., Results: In total 731 patients and HCPs were invited, 501 completed round 1, and 420 completed both rounds. This included 204 patients in curative-setting, 74 patients in palliative-setting, and 142 HCPs. After 2 rounds, 8 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, ability to work/do usual activities, fear of recurrence, satisfaction with services/care organization, abdominal complaints, and relationship with partner/family., Conclusions: This international Delphi study among patients and HCPs established a core set of PROs in pancreatic cancer, which should facilitate the design of future pancreatic cancer trials and outcomes research.

Management of Bd-IPMN remains challenging. Critical appraisal of the published literature reveals that the actual treatment of what is presumed to be Bd-IPMN remains unsatisfactory, with a high rate of surgically overtreated patients. Until we accrue more precise knowledge of the natural history of Bd-IPMN, management of patients with this presumed diagnosis should be individually tailored and preferably carried out in centers with a high expertise. For now, the authors strongly think that the old guidelines should be followed in most patients because these have proven to correctly identify lesions that can be safely followed. Although the new guidelines allow for follow-up of lesions greater than 3 cm, and for the most part this is safe, they should be used cautiously in younger patients because very close surveillance would be required for their long remaining lifespan.