Introduction: Routine treatment with preoperative systemic chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains controversial due to lack of consistent evidence... Show moreIntroduction: Routine treatment with preoperative systemic chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains controversial due to lack of consistent evidence demonstrating associated survival benefits. This study aimed to determine the effect of preoperative CTx on overall survival (OS) compared to surgery alone and to assess hospital and oncological network variation in 5year OS. Methods: This was a population-based study of all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), OS was compared between patients treated with and without preoperative CTx. Hospital and oncological network variation in 5-year OS corrected for case-mix factors was calculated using an observed/expected ratio. Results: Of 2820 patients included, 852 (30.2%) and 1968 (69.8%) patients were treated with preoperative CTx and surgery alone, respectively. After PSM, 537 patients remained in each group, median number of CRLM; 3 [IQR 2-4], median size of CRLM; 28 mm [IQR 18-44], synchronous CLRM (71.1%). Median follow-up was 80.8 months. Five-year OS rates after PSM for patients treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy were 40.2% versus 38.3% (log-rank P 1/4 0.734). After stratification for low, medium, and high tumour burden based on the tumour burden score (TBS) OS was similar for preoperative chemotherapy vs. surgery alone (log-rank P = 0.486, P = 0.914, and P = 0.744, respectively). After correction for non-modifiable patient and tumour characteristics, no relevant hospital or oncological network variation in five-year OS was observed. Conclusion: In patients eligible for surgical resection, preoperative chemotherapy does not provide an overall survival benefit compared to surgery alone. (c) 2023 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
Background: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 4-tier (ie, A-D) risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C is based on pancreatic texture and pancreatic... Show moreBackground: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 4-tier (ie, A-D) risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C is based on pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size: A (not-soft texture and pancreatic duct >3 mm), B (not-soft texture and pancreatic duct <= 3 mm), C (soft texture and pancreatic duct >3 mm), and D (soft texture and pancreatic duct <= 3 mm). This study aimed to validate the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Methods: Consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for all indications (2014-2021) were included from the nationwide, mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery 2016 definition) was calculated per risk category. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (discrimination) and calibration plots. Results: Overall, 3,900 patients were included in risk categories: A (n = 1,046), B (n = 498), C (n = 963), and D (n =1,393) with corresponding postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C rates of 3.8%, 12.2%, 15.6%, and 29.6%. Per category, the in-hospital mortality rates were 1.3%, 3.4%, 2.9%, and 4.1%, P =.001. There was no difference in the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula between risk categories B and C (12.2% vs 15.6%, P = .101). When simplifying the classification system to a 3-tier classification system (based on 0,1, and 2 risk factors), the discrimination was not significantly different (area under the receiver operating curve 0.697 vs area under the receiver operating curve 0.701, P = .077).Conclusion: This validation of the 4-tier International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery risk classification for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy confirmed its predictive value. However, as the 2 middle risk categories provide no added predictive value, a simplified 3-tier classification with comparable predictive value is proposed and should be validated in future prospective studies.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 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
Roessel, S. van; Strijker, M.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Groen, J.V.; Mieog, J.S.; Groot, V.P.; ... ; Besselink, M.G. 2020
Background: The objective of this study was to validate and update the Amsterdam prediction model including tumor grade, lymph node ratio, margin status and adjuvant therapy, for prediction of... Show moreBackground: The objective of this study was to validate and update the Amsterdam prediction model including tumor grade, lymph node ratio, margin status and adjuvant therapy, for prediction of overall survival (OS) after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.Methods: We included consecutive patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer between 2000 and 2017 at 11 tertiary centers in 8 countries (USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Korea, Australia). Model performance for prediction of OS was evaluated by calibration statistics and Uno's C-statistic for discrimination. Validation followed the TRIPOD statement.Results: Overall, 3081 patients (53% male, median age 66 years) were included with a median OS of 24 months, of whom 38% had N2 disease and 77% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Predictions of 3-year OS were fairly similar to observed OS with a calibration slope of 0.72. Statistical updating of the model resulted in an increase of the C-statistic from 0.63 to 0.65 (95% CI 0.64-0.65), ranging from 0.62 to 0.67 across different countries. The area under the curve for the prediction of 3 -year OS was 0.71 after updating. Median OS was 36, 25 and 15 months for the low, intermediate and high risk group, respectively (P < 0.001).Conclusions: This large international study validated and updated the Amsterdam model for survival prediction after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The model incorporates readily available variables with a fairly accurate model performance and robustness across different countries, while novel markers may be added in the future. The risk groups and web-based calculator www pancreascalculaior. corn may facilitate use in daily practice and future trials. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved. Show less
Objective: Our aim was to determine the prognostic significance of the systemic-immune-inflammation index (SIII) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, using cancer-specific survival as the... Show moreObjective: Our aim was to determine the prognostic significance of the systemic-immune-inflammation index (SIII) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, using cancer-specific survival as the primary outcome.Background: Pancreatic cancer is associated with a dysfunctional immune system and poor prognosis. We examined the prognostic significance of the SIII in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and the effects of bilirubin on this index.Methods: We retrospectively assessed all pancreatic resections performed between 2004 and 2015 at 4 tertiary referral centers to identify pathologically confirmed PDAC patients. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics, preoperative laboratory values such as absolute neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts, C-reactive protein, albumin, bilirubin, and CA19-9 levels, and also follow-up information, were collected. The associations of the calculated inflammatory indices with outcome were both internally and externally validated.Results: In all, 590 patients with resectable PDAC were included. The discovery and validation cohort included 170 and 420 patients, respectively. SIII > 900 [hazard ratio (HR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55-3.48], lymph node ratio (HR 3.75, 95% CI 2.08-6.76), and CA19.9 > 200 kU/L (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07-2.46) were identified as independent predictors of cancer-specific survival. Separate model analysis confirmed that preoperative SIII contributed significantly to prognostication. However, SIII appeared to lose its prognostic significance in patients with bilirubin levels above 200 mu mol/L.Conclusions: SIII is an independent predictor of cancer-specific survival and recurrence in patients with resectable PDAC. SIII may lose its prognostic significance in patients with high bilirubin levels. Properly designed prospective studies are needed to further confirm this hypothesis. Show less
Background. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic... Show moreBackground. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes.Methods. Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ae14 weeks).Results. From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT-MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8-11) and a median MRI-surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2-5). The CRT-surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (>= 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival.Conclusions. These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes. Show less
Aim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment... Show moreAim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment with published landmark randomized controlled trials as a benchmark.Method In this collaborative research project, the dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was extended with additional treatment and long-term outcome data. All registered patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer in 2011 were eligible. Baseline characteristics and outcome were evaluated against the results of the Dutch TME trial and the COLOR II trial from which the original datasets were obtained.Results A total of 71 hospitals participated, and data were completed for 2102 out of the potential 2633 patients (79.8%). Median follow-up was 41 (interquartile range 25-47) months. Overall circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was 9.3% in the Snapshot cohort and 18.5% in the Dutch TME trial. CRM positivity after laparoscopic resection was 7.8% in the Snapshot and 9.5% in the COLOR II trial. Three-year overall local recurrence rate in the Snapshot was 5.9%, with a disease-free survival of 67.1% and overall survival of 79.5%. Benchmarking with the randomized controlled trials revealed an overall favourable long-term outcome of the Snapshot cohort.Conclusion This study showed that current rectal cancer care in a large unselected Dutch population is of high quality, with less positive CRM since the TME trial and oncologically safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery after the COLOR II trial. Show less
