Background: Cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy cause significant disease burden. We aimed to study the technical feasibility and safety of intensive endoscopic therapy. Methods: In... Show moreBackground: Cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy cause significant disease burden. We aimed to study the technical feasibility and safety of intensive endoscopic therapy. Methods: In this pilot study, we included 15 patients with an untreated benign cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. Intensive endoscopic therapy comprised three endoscopic modalities: in- and excision using a needle-knife, intralesional steroid injections and bougie dilation. In two endoscopic procedures, the stricture was dilated up to a luminal diameter of 18 mm. Patients were followed up to 6 months. Results: A luminal diameter of 18 mm was achieved in 13 of 15 patients (87%) after two endoscopic procedures. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment occurred. Median dysphagia scores significantly improved from 2 (IQR, interquartile range, 2-3) at baseline to 0 (IQR 0-1) after 14 days (p < 0.001). Eleven (73%) patients developed recurrent symptoms of dysphagia requiring a median of 1 (IQR 0-3) additional endoscopic dilation procedure. Conclusions: Achieving a luminal diameter of 18 mm in two procedures with intensive endoscopic therapy was technically feasible and effective in reducing dysphagia rapidly in patients with a cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment were observed. Show less
Gorris, M.; Valk, N.P. van der; Fockens, P.; Jacobs, M.A.; Montazeri, N.S.M.; Voermans, R.P.; ... ; Wanrooij, R.L. van 2022
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with... Show moreBackground: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. Results: We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Conclusion: Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies. Show less
PURPOSE: Pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study... Show morePURPOSE: Pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated the yield and outcomes of 20 years of prospective surveillance in a large cohort of individuals with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in CDKN2A. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were analyzed from individuals participating in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and optional endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven germline PV carriers participated in surveillance and were followed for a median of 5.6 (interquartile range 2.3-9.9) years. A total of 36 cases of PDAC were diagnosed in 31 (8.9%) patients at a median age of 60.4 (interquartile range 51.3-64.1) years. The cumulative incidence of primary PDAC was 20.7% by age 70 years. Five carriers (5 of 31; 16.1%) were diagnosed with a second primary PDAC. Thirty (83.3%) of 36 PDACs were considered resectable at the time of imaging. Twelve cases (12 of 36; 33.3%) presented with stage I disease. The median survival after diagnosis of primary PDAC was 26.8 months, and the 5-year survival rate was 32.4% (95% CI, 19.1 to 54.8). Individuals with primary PDAC who underwent resection (22 of 31; 71.0%) had an overall 5-year survival rate of 44.1% (95% CI, 27.2 to 71.3). Nine (2.6%; 9 of 347) individuals underwent surgery for a suspected malignant lesion, which proved to not be PDAC, and this included five lesions with low-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSION: This long-term surveillance study demonstrates a high incidence of PDAC in carriers of a PV in CDKN2A. This provides evidence that surveillance in such a high-risk population leads to detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival. Show less
PURPOSEPancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated... Show morePURPOSEPancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated the yield and outcomes of 20 years of prospective surveillance in a large cohort of individuals with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in CDKN2A.METHODSProspectively collected data were analyzed from individuals participating in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and optional endoscopic ultrasound.RESULTSThree hundred forty-seven germline PV carriers participated in surveillance and were followed for a median of 5.6 (interquartile range 2.3-9.9) years. A total of 36 cases of PDAC were diagnosed in 31 (8.9%) patients at a median age of 60.4 (interquartile range 51.3-64.1) years. The cumulative incidence of primary PDAC was 20.7% by age 70 years. Five carriers (5 of 31; 16.1%) were diagnosed with a second primary PDAC. Thirty (83.3%) of 36 PDACs were considered resectable at the time of imaging. Twelve cases (12 of 36; 33.3%) presented with stage I disease. The median survival after diagnosis of primary PDAC was 26.8 months, and the 5-year survival rate was 32.4% (95% CI, 19.1 to 54.8). Individuals with primary PDAC who underwent resection (22 of 31; 71.0%) had an overall 5-year survival rate of 44.1% (95% CI, 27.2 to 71.3). Nine (2.6%; 9 of 347) individuals underwent surgery for a suspected malignant lesion, which proved to not be PDAC, and this included five lesions with low-grade dysplasia.CONCLUSIONThis long-term surveillance study demonstrates a high incidence of PDAC in carriers of a PV in CDKN2A. This provides evidence that surveillance in such a high-risk population leads to detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival. Show less
Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion... Show moreBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome.Methods We established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP.Results We established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25-4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7).Conclusions Even in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
BackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of... Show moreBackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome.MethodsWe established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP.ResultsWe established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25–4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7).ConclusionsEven in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP. Show less
Purpose To characterize the prevalence of missed pancreatic masses and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-related findings on CT and MRI between pre-diagnostic patients and healthy individuals... Show morePurpose To characterize the prevalence of missed pancreatic masses and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-related findings on CT and MRI between pre-diagnostic patients and healthy individuals.Materials and methods Patients diagnosed with PDAC (2010-2016) were retrospectively reviewed for abdominal CT- or MRI-examinations 1 month-3 years prior to their diagnosis, and subsequently matched to controls in a 1:4 ratio. Two blinded radiologists scored each imaging exam on the presence of a pancreatic mass and secondary features of PDAC. Additionally, original radiology reports were graded based on the revised RADPEER criteria.Results The cohort of 595 PDAC patients contained 60 patients with a pre-diagnostic CT and 27 with an MRI. A pancreatic mass was suspected in hindsight on CT in 51.7% and 50% of cases and in 1.3% and 0.9% of controls by reviewer 1 (p < .001) and reviewer 2 (p < .001), respectively. On MRI, a mass was suspected in 70.4% and 55.6% of cases and 2.9% and 0% of the controls by reviewer 1 (p < .001) and reviewer 2 (p < .001), respectively. Pancreatic duct dilation, duct interruption, focal atrophy, and features of acute pancreatitis is strongly associated with PDAC (p < .001). In cases, a RADPEER-score of 2 or 3 was assigned to 56.3% of the CT-reports and 71.4% of MRI-reports.Conclusion Radiological features as pancreatic duct dilation and interruption, and focal atrophy are common first signs of PDAC and are often missed or unrecognized. Further investigation with dedicated pancreas imaging is warranted in patients with PDAC-related radiological findings. Show less
Oratie uitgesproken door Prof. dr. Jeanin E. van Hooft bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar Hoogleraar Maag-, Darm- en Leverziekten aan de Universiteit Leiden op vrijdag 9 september 2022
Simple Summary: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, even in patients that can be surgically treated with curative intent. An interesting subgroup of resected pancreatic cancers are those... Show moreSimple Summary: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, even in patients that can be surgically treated with curative intent. An interesting subgroup of resected pancreatic cancers are those associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN), since overall survival might differ from pancreatic cancer not associated with PCN. Although several single-center studies published conflicting data on this topic, nationwide studies are lacking. In this nationwide, registry-based study, we aimed to compare the overall survival between patients with PCN-associated pancreatic cancers to those with pancreatic cancer not associated with PCN. We found that 12% of resected pancreatic cancers patients were PCN-associated. Overall survival was better in patients with PCN-associated pancreatic cancer as compared to those not associated with PCN. Future prospective studies should focus on the impact of these findings, such as the impact of (neo)adjuvant treatment regimens in this specific patient group. Background: Outcome after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN-PDAC) might differ from PDAC not associated with PCN. This nationwide, registry-based study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) in these patients. Methods: Data from consecutive patients after pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2013 and 2018 were matched with the corresponding pathology reports. Primary outcome was OS for PCN-PDAC and PDAC including 1-year and 5-year OS. Cox regression analysis was used to correct for prognostic factors (e.g., pT-stage, pN-stage, and vascular invasion). Results: In total, 1994 patients underwent resection for PDAC including 233 (12%) with PCN-PDAC. Median estimated OS was better in patients with PCN-PDAC (34.5 months [95%CI 25.6 to 43.5]) as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN (18.2 months [95%CI 17.3 to 19.2]; hazard ratio 0.53 [95%CI 0.44-0.63]; p < 0.001). The difference in OS remained after correction for prognostic factors (adjusted hazard ratio 1.58 [95%CI 1.32-1.90]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This nationwide registry-based study showed that 12% of resected PDAC were PCN-associated. Patients with PCN-PDAC had better OS as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN. Show less
Background: Outcome after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN-PDAC) might differ from PDAC not associated with PCN. This nationwide,... Show moreBackground: Outcome after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN-PDAC) might differ from PDAC not associated with PCN. This nationwide, registry-based study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) in these patients. Methods: Data from consecutive patients after pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2013 and 2018 were matched with the corresponding pathology reports. Primary outcome was OS for PCN-PDAC and PDAC including 1-year and 5-year OS. Cox regression analysis was used to correct for prognostic factors (e.g., pT-stage, pN-stage, and vascular invasion). Results: In total, 1994 patients underwent resection for PDAC including 233 (12%) with PCN-PDAC. Median estimated OS was better in patients with PCN-PDAC (34.5 months [95%CI 25.6 to 43.5]) as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN (18.2 months [95%CI 17.3 to 19.2]; hazard ratio 0.53 [95%CI 0.44–0.63]; p < 0.001). The difference in OS remained after correction for prognostic factors (adjusted hazard ratio 1.58 [95%CI 1.32−1.90]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This nationwide registry-based study showed that 12% of resected PDAC were PCN-associated. Patients with PCN-PDAC had better OS as compared to PDAC not associated with PCN. Show less
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Show less
Background & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis... Show moreBackground & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.MethodsIn this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.ConclusionsAt long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571. Show less
Dekkers, N.; Dang, H.; Kraan, J. van der; Cessie, S. le; Oldenburg, P.P.; Schoones, J.W.; ... ; Boonstra, J.J. 2022
Background T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local... Show moreBackground T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.Methods A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.Results In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I-2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p <0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%).Conclusions Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However,... Show moreObjective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -euro6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -euro26 386 to euro10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable. Show less
Janssen, Q.P.; Gorris, M.; Broek, B.L.J. van den; Besselink, M.G.; Busch, O.R.; Eijck, C.H.J. van; ... ; Driel, L.M.J.W. van 2022
Background: The management of pancreatic body and tail lesions is underexposed. It remains unclear whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) increases the accuracy of the preoperative workup. This... Show moreBackground: The management of pancreatic body and tail lesions is underexposed. It remains unclear whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) increases the accuracy of the preoperative workup. This study assessed the diagnostic value and safety of EUS in addition to cross-sectional imaging in a surgical cohort of patients with pancreatic body or tail lesions.Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. The composite primary outcome was the additional value of EUS, defined as: (a) EUS confirmed an uncertain diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging, (b) EUS was correct in case of discrepancy with cross-sectional imaging, or (c) EUS provided tissue diagnosis for neoadjuvant treatment. Furthermore, serious adverse events and needle tract seeding were assessed.Results: In total, 181 patients were included, of whom 123 (68%) underwent EUS besides crosssectional imaging. Postoperative pathology was heterogeneous: 91 was malignant, 49 premalignant, 41 benign. Most lesions were solid (n = 117). EUS had additional value in 59/123 (48%) patients; 27/50 (54%) of cystic and 32/73 (44%) of solid lesions. No serious adverse event or needle tract seeding following EUS occurred.Conclusion: EUS had additional value besides cross-sectional imaging in half of the patients and showed low associated risks. Show less
Main recommendations: ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and... Show moreMain recommendations: ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based). ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection. ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions. For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas. ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions. ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques. ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended. ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size <= 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or <= 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions. ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment. ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion. ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD. Show less
IntroductionDespite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this... Show moreIntroductionDespite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.MethodsAn online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.ResultsOverall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.ConclusionThis survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence. Show less
ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye... Show moreESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD. Show less
Introduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently under diagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this... Show moreIntroduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently under diagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.Methods: An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.Results: Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had > 15 years of experience and 35% treated > 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.Conclusion: This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of IAP and EPC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
PURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a... Show morePURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Show less
