Background: We studied the added value of digital FDG-PET/CT in disease staging and restaging compared to the standard work-up with contrast enhanced CT (ceCT) and CA19-9 in patients with... Show moreBackground: We studied the added value of digital FDG-PET/CT in disease staging and restaging compared to the standard work-up with contrast enhanced CT (ceCT) and CA19-9 in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer who received neo-adjuvant therapy. Primary endpoints were tumor response compared to ceCT and CA19.9 as well as the ability to detect distant metastatic disease.Methods: 35 patients were included in this dual-center prospective study. FDG-PET using digital photon counting technology combined with CT scans were acquired before (T1) and after neo-adjuvant therapy (T2). Patients were staged and restaged based on standard protocol with ceCT and CA 19.9, while all PET/CT scans were stored securely and not included in clinical decision making. After the pancreatic resection, an expert team retro-spectively assessed the CT tumor diameter, CA19-9, tumor FDG-uptake, and appearance of metastatic disease of all patients for both time points.Results: CA19-9 levels, CT tumor diameter, and tumor FDG-uptake on PET significantly decreased from T1 to T2 (p = 0.017, p = 0.001, and p < 0.0001). The change in FDG-uptake values showed a strong positive correlation with the change in CT tumor diameter and change in CA19-9 (R = 0.75 and R = 0.73, respectively). In addition, small-volume liver lesions were detected on digital PET/CT in 5/35 patients (14%), 4 of which were pathology confirmed at laparotomy. Only one of these five cases was detected on baseline staging ceCT (3%). Conclusion: We found that adding digital PET/CT strengthens restaging after neo-adjuvant therapy based on the observed strong correlation with ceCT tumor diameter and Ca19.9. Also, digital PET/CT was found to detect occult metastatic disease not visualized on ceCT, that would have resulted in altered disease staging and ther-apeutic strategy in a substantial proportion of patients. 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
IMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier... Show moreIMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function.OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for <= 2 months or weak opioids for <= 6 months) were included. The 18-month follow-up period ended in March 2018.INTERVENTIONS There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality.RESULTS Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P = .02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P = .10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P < .001). Treatment complications (27% vs 25%), mortality (0% vs 0%), hospital admissions, pancreatic function, and quality of life were not significantly different between early surgery and the endoscopy-first approach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months. However, further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings. Show less
Background and aims Subjects with one first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) < 50 years old or two FDRs with CRC have an increased risk for CRC (RR 4-6). Current guidelines... Show moreBackground and aims Subjects with one first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) < 50 years old or two FDRs with CRC have an increased risk for CRC (RR 4-6). Current guidelines recommend colonoscopic surveillance of such families. However, information about the yield of surveillance is limited. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of surveillance and to identify risk factors for the development of adenomas. Patients and methods Subjects were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: asymptomatic subjects aged between 45 and 65 years, with one FDR with CRC < 50 years old (group A) or two FDRs with CRC diagnosed at any age (group B). Subjects with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease or colorectal surgery were excluded. Results A total of 551 subjects (242 male) met the selection criteria. Ninety-five subjects with a previous colonoscopy were excluded. Two of 456 remaining subjects (0.4%) were found to have a colorectal tumour (one CRC and one carcinoid). Adenomas were detected in 85 (18.6%) and adenomas with advanced pathology in 37 subjects (8.1%). 30 subjects (6.6%) had multiple (> 1) adenomas. Men were more often found to have an adenoma than women (24% vs 14.3%; p=0.01). Adenomas were more frequent in group B compared with group A (22.0% vs 15.6%; p=0.09). Conclusion The yield of colonoscopic surveillance in familial CRC is substantially higher than the yield of screening reported for the general population. Show less
