Background: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center ... Show moreBackground: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians.Methods: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. Results: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005).Conclusion: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange. Show less
Background The causal pathway between complications after pancreatic cancer resection and impaired long-term survival remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of... Show moreBackground The causal pathway between complications after pancreatic cancer resection and impaired long-term survival remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of complications after pancreatic cancer resection on disease-free interval and overall survival, with adjuvant chemotherapy as a mediator. Methods This observational study included all patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection in the Netherlands (2014-2017). Clinical data were extracted from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Recurrence and survival data were collected additionally. In causal mediation analysis, direct and indirect effect estimates via adjuvant chemotherapy were calculated. Results In total, 1071 patients were included. Major complications (hazards ratio 1.22 (95 per cent c.i. 1.04 to 1.43); P = 0.015 and hazards ratio 1.25 (95 per cent c.i. 1.08 to 1.46); P = 0.003) and organ failure (hazards ratio 1.86 (95 per cent c.i. 1.32 to 2.62); P < 0.001 and hazards ratio 1.89 (95 per cent c.i. 1.36 to 2.63); P < 0.001) were associated with shorter disease-free interval and overall survival respectively. The effects of major complications and organ failure on disease-free interval (-1.71 (95 per cent c.i. -2.27 to -1.05) and -3.05 (95 per cent c.i. -4.03 to -1.80) respectively) and overall survival (-1.92 (95 per cent c.i. -2.60 to -1.16) and -3.49 (95 per cent c.i. -4.84 to -2.03) respectively) were mediated by adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, organ failure directly affected disease-free interval (-5.38 (95 per cent c.i. -9.27 to -1.94)) and overall survival (-6.32 (95 per cent c.i. -10.43 to -1.99)). In subgroup analyses, the association was found in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion Major complications, including organ failure, negatively impact survival in patients after pancreatic cancer resection, largely mediated by adjuvant chemotherapy. Prevention or adequate treatment of complications and use of neoadjuvant treatment may improve oncological outcomes.This nationwide observational cohort study included 1052 patients and showed that major complications, including organ failure, have a negative impact on disease-free interval and overall survival after resection of pancreatic cancer. This effect was largely mediated by the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Show less
Background: The prognostic value of four proposed modifications to the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system has yet to be evaluated. This study aimed to validate five... Show moreBackground: The prognostic value of four proposed modifications to the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system has yet to be evaluated. This study aimed to validate five proposed modifications. Methods: Patients who underwent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection (2014-2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, were included. Stratification and prognostication of TNM staging systems were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard analyses, and C-indices. A new modification was composed based on overall survival (OS). Results: Overall, 750 patients with a median OS of 18 months (interquartile range 10-32) were included. The 8th edition had an increased discriminative ability compared with the 7th edition {C-index 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.61) vs. 0.56 (95% CI 0.54-0.58)}. Although the 8th edition showed a stepwise decrease in OS with increasing stage, no differences could be demonstrated between all substages; stage IIA vs. IB (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.09; p = 0.29) and stage IIB vs. IIA (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75-1.83; p = 0.48). The four modifications showed comparable prognostic accuracy (C-index 0.59-0.60); however, OS did not differ between all modified TNM stages (ns). The new modification, migrating T3N1 patients to stage III, showed a C-index of 0.59, but did detect significant survival differences between all TNM stages (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The 8th TNM staging system still lacks prognostic value for some categories of patients, which was not clearly improved by four previously proposed modifications. The modification suggested in this study allows for better prognostication in patients with all stages of disease. Show less
Background The number of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer is growing, however clinical data on the short-term outcomes, rate of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival in these patients are... Show moreBackground The number of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer is growing, however clinical data on the short-term outcomes, rate of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival in these patients are limited and we therefore performed a nationwide analysis. Methods Data from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit were analyzed, including all patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection between January 2014 and December 2016. Patients were classified into two age groups: <75 and >= 75 years. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher), 90-day mortality, rates of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival were compared between age groups. Factors associated with start of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival were evaluated with logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Results Of 836 patients, 198 were aged >= 75 years (24%) and 638 were aged <75 years (76%). Median follow-up was 38 months (interquartile range [IQR] 31-47). Major complications (31% vs. 28%; p = 0.43) and 90-day mortality (8% vs. 5%; p = 0.18) did not differ. Adjuvant chemotherapy was started in 37% of patients aged >= 75 years versus 69% of patients aged <75 years (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-18) versus 21 months (95% CI 19-24; p < 0.001). Age >= 75 years was not independently associated with OS (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.17; p = 0.71), but was associated with a lower rate of adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.40; p < 0.001). Conclusions The rate of major complications and 90-day mortality after pancreatic resection did not differ between elderly and younger patients; however, elderly patients were less often treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and their OS was shorter. Show less
Smits, F.J.; Henry, A.C.; Besselink, M.G.; Busch, O.R.; Eijck, C.H. van; Arntz, M.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group 2022
Background: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk... Show moreBackground: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk procedures such as pancreatic resection. Methods: We did an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that included all patients having pancreatic resection during a 22-month period in the Netherlands. In this trial design, all 17 centres that did pancreatic surgery were randomly allocated for the timing of the crossover from usual care (the control group) to treatment given in accordance with a multimodal, multidisciplinary algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of postoperative complications (the intervention group). Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated scheme, stratified to ensure that low-medium-volume centres alternated with high-volume centres. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment. A smartphone app was designed that incorporated the algorithm and included the daily evaluation of clinical and biochemical markers. The algorithm determined when to do abdominal CT, radiological drainage, start antibiotic treatment, and remove abdominal drains. After crossover, clinicians were trained in how to use the algorithm during a 4-week wash-in period; analyses comparing outcomes between the control group and the intervention group included all patients other than those having pancreatic resection during this wash-in period. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding that required invasive intervention, organ failure, and 90-day mortality, and was assessed by a masked adjudication committee. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL6671. Findings: From Jan 8, 2018, to Nov 9, 2019, all 1805 patients who had pancreatic resection in the Netherlands were eligible for and included in this study. 57 patients who underwent resection during the wash-in phase were excluded from the primary analysis. 1748 patients (885 receiving usual care and 863 receiving algorithm-centred care) were included. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the algorithm-centred care group than in the usual care group (73 [8%] of 863 patients vs 124 [14%] of 885 patients; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0middot48, 95% CI 0middot38-0middot61; p<0middot0001). Among patients treated according to the algorithm, compared with patients who received usual care there was a decrease in bleeding that required intervention (47 [5%] patients vs 51 [6%] patients; RR 0middot65, 0middot42-0middot99; p=0middot046), organ failure (39 [5%] patients vs 92 [10%] patients; 0middot35, 0middot20-0middot60; p=0middot0001), and 90-day mortality (23 [3%] patients vs 44 [5%] patients; 0middot42, 0middot19-0middot92; p=0middot029). Interpretation: The algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of complications after pancreatic resection considerably improved clinical outcomes compared with usual care. This difference included an approximate 50% reduction in mortality at 90 days. Show less
Background: This study aimed to identify predictors for early and very early disease recurrence in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resection with and... Show moreBackground: This study aimed to identify predictors for early and very early disease recurrence in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Included were patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Multivariable multinomial regression was performed to identify preoperative predictors for manifestation of recurrence within 3, 6 and 12 months after PDAC resection. Results: 836 patients with a median follow-up of 37 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-48) months and overall survival of 18 (IQR 10-32) months were analyzed. 670 patients (80%) developed recurrence: 82 patients (10%) < 3 months, 96 patients (11%) within 3-6 months and 226 patients (27%) within 6-12 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.10-1.41]; P < 0.001) and neoadjuvant treatment (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.01-0.68]; P = 0.02) were associated with recurrence < 3 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.10-1.38]; P < 0.001) and 0-90 degrees venous involvement on CT imaging (OR 2.93 [95% CI 1.60-5.37]; P < 0.001) were associated with recurrence within 3-6 months. A Charlson Age Comorbidity Index > 4 (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.09-2.16]; P = 0.02) and logCA 19-9 (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.14-1.35]; P < 0.001) were related to recurrence within 6-12 months. Conclusion: This study demonstrates preoperative predictors that are associated with the manifestation of early and very early recurrence after PDAC resection. Knowledge of these predictors can be used to guide individualized surveillance and treatment strategies. Show less
Objective: To quantify the impact of individual complications on mortality, organ failure, hospital stay, and readmission after pancreatoduodenectomy. Summary of Background Data: An initial... Show moreObjective: 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 on delayed gastric emptying. Show less
Purpose: High-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerators (MR-Linacs), linear accelerators combined with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and online adaptive workflow,... Show morePurpose: High-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerators (MR-Linacs), linear accelerators combined with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and online adaptive workflow, potentially give rise to novel online anatomic and response adaptive radiation therapy paradigms. The first high-field (1.5T) MR-Linac received regulatory approval in late 2018, and little is known about clinical use, patient tolerability of daily high-field MRI, and toxicity of treatments. Herein we report the initial experience within the MOMENTUM Study (NCT04075305), a prospective international registry of the MRLinac Consortium. Methods and Materials: Patients were included between February 2019 and October 2020 at 7 institutions in 4 countries. We used descriptive statistics to describe the patterns of care, tolerability (the percentage of patients discontinuing their course early), and safety (grade 3-5 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5 acute toxicity within 3 months after the end of treatment). Results: A total 943 patients participated in the MOMENTUM Study, 702 of whom had complete baseline data at the time of this analysis. Patients were primarily male (79%) with a median age of 68 years (range, 22-93) and were treated for 39 different indications. The most frequent indications were prostate (40%), oligometastatic lymph node (17%), brain (12%), and rectal (10%) cancers. The median number of fractions was 5 (range, 1-35). Six patients discontinued MR-Linac treatments, but none due to an inability to tolerate repeated high-field MRI. Of the 415 patients with complete data on acute toxicity at 3 month follow-up, 18 (4%) patients experienced grade 3 acute toxicity related to radiation. No grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity related to radiation was observed. Conclusions: In the first 21 months of our study, patterns of care were diverse with respect to clinical utilization, body sites, and radiation prescriptions. No patient discontinued treatment due to inability to tolerate daily high-field MRI scans, and the acute radiation toxicity experience was encouraging. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Introduction: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important... Show moreIntroduction: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer. Methods: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer). Results: In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/ 679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pancreatic cancer, 71% for distal cholangiocarcinoma, 73% for ampullary cancer and 73% for duodenal cancer. A prediction model for the preoperative likelihood of pancreatic cancer (versus other periampullary cancer) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated an AUC of 0.88. Discussion: This retrospective multicentre cohort study showed that 16% of patients have a clinically relevant misdiagnosis that could result in either missing the opportunity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer or inappropriate administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer. A preoperative prediction model is available on www.pancreascalculator.com. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Introduction: First, this study aimed to assess the prognostic value of different definitions for resection margin status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in pancreatic... Show moreIntroduction: First, this study aimed to assess the prognostic value of different definitions for resection margin status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Second, preoperative predictors of direct margin involvement were identified.Materials and methods: This nationwide observational cohort study included all patients who underwent upfront PDAC resection (2014-2016), as registered in the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Patients were subdivided into three groups: R0 (>= 1 mm margin clearance), R1 (<1 mm margin clearance) or R1 (direct margin involvement). Survival was compared using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Logistic regression with baseline variables was performed to identify preoperative predictors of R1 (direct).Results: 595 patients with a median OS of 18 months (IQR 10-32 months) months were analysed. R0 (>= 1 mm) was achieved in 277 patients (47%), R1 (<1 mm) in 146 patients (24%) and R1 (direct) in 172 patients (29%). R1 (direct) was associated with a worse OS, as compared with both R0 (>= 1 mm) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 [95% and confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.70); P < 0.01) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.29 [95%CI 1.01-1.67]; P < 0.05). No OS difference was found between R0 (>= 1 mm) and R1 (<1 mm) (HR 1.05 [95% CI 0.82-1.34]; P = 0.71). Preoperative predictors associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) included age, male sex, performance score 2-4, and venous or arterial tumour involvement.Conclusion: Resection margin clearance of <1 mm, but without direct margin involvement, does not affect survival, as compared with a margin clearance of >1 mm. Given that any vascular tumour involvement on preoperative imaging was associated with an increased risk of R1 (direct) resection with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy might be considered in these patients. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Introduction With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that... Show moreIntroduction With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that early detection (eg, by population-based screening) and treatment of hyperglycemia will postpone the indication for insulin treatment. A treatment legacy effect of population-based screening for type 2 diabetes of about 3 years is estimated. Therefore, we aim to compare insulin prescription and glycemic control in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes after 10 years with data from people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes seven (treatment legacy effect) and 10 years before during care-as-usual.Research design and methods Three cohorts were compared: one screen-detected cohort with 10 years diabetes duration (Anglo-Danish-Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary care (ADDITION-NL): n=391) and two care-as-usual cohorts, one with 7-year diabetes duration (Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) and Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available Care (ZODIAC): n=4473) and one with 10-year diabetes duration (GIANTT and ZODIAC: n=2660). Insulin prescription (primary outcome) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of people with a known diabetes duration of 7 years or 10 years at the index year 2014 were compared using regression analyses.Results Insulin was prescribed in 10.5% (10-year screen detection), 14.7% (7-year care-as-usual) and 19.0% (10-year care-as-usual). People in the 7-year and 10-year care-as-usual groups had a 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) higher adjusted odds for getting insulin prescribed than those after screen detection. Lower HbA1c values were found 10 years after screen detection (mean 50.1 mmol/mol (6.7%) vs 51.8 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 52.8 mmol/mol (7.0%)), compared with 7 years and 10 years after care-as-usual (MDadjusted: 1.6 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.6 to 2.6); 0.1% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) and 1.8 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.7 to 2.9); and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)).Conclusion Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes is associated with less need for insulin after 10 years compared with people diagnosed during care-as-usual. Glycemic control was better after screen detection but on average good in all groups. Show less
