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.

An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree on consensus statements. The treatment of ICC requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize survival. Biopsy is not necessary if the surgeon suspects ICC and is planning curative resection, although biopsy should be obtained before systemic or locoregional therapies are initiated. Assessment of resectability is best accomplished using cross-sectional imaging [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], but the role of positron emission tomography (PET) is unclear. Resectability in ICC is defined by the ability to completely remove the disease while leaving an adequate liver remnant. Extrahepatic disease, multiple bilobar or multicentric tumours, and lymph node metastases beyond the primary echelon are contraindications to resection. Regional lymphadenectomy should be considered a standard part of surgical therapy. In patients with high-risk features, the routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended. The preoperative diagnosis of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) by imaging studies is extremely difficult. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, but survival is worse than in HCC alone. There are no adequately powered, randomized Phase III trials that can provide definitive recommendations for adjuvant therapy for ICC. Patients with high-risk features (lymphovascular invasion, multicentricity or satellitosis, large tumours) should be encouraged to enrol in clinical trials and to consider adjuvant therapy. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine represents the standard-of-care, front-line systemic therapy for metastatic ICC. Genomic analyses of biliary cancers support the development of targeted therapeutic interventions., (© 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

Background: The 3(rd) English edition of the Japanese classification of the biliary tract cancers (JC) is now available in this journal. The primary aim of this revision is to provide all clinicians and researchers with a common language of cancer staging at an international level. On the other hand, there are several important issues that should be solved for the optimization of the staging system., Methods: Revision concepts and major revision points of the 3(rd) English edition of the JC were reviewed. Furthermore, comparing with the 7(th) edition of staging system developed by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), distinctive points in the JC was discussed., Results: In this edition of the JC, the same stage groupings as those in the UICC/AJCC staging system were basically adopted. T, N, and M categories were also identical in principle with those in the UICC/AJCC staging system, although slight modifications were proposed as the "Japanese rules". As distinctive points, perihilar cholangiocarcinomas and ampullary region carcinomas were clearly defined. Intraepithelial tumor was discriminated from invasive carcinoma at ductal resection margins. Classifications of site-specific surgical margin status remained in this edition. Histological classification was based on that in the former editions of the JC, but adopted some parts of the World Health Organization classification., Conclusions: The JC now share its staging system of the biliary tact carcinomas with the UICC/AJCC staging system. Future validation of the "Japanese rules" could provide important evidence to make globally standardized staging system., (© 2015 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)