Background: Surveillance of pancreatic cysts focuses on the detection of (mostly morphologic) features warranting surgery. European guidelines consider elevated CA19.9 as a relative indication for... Show moreBackground: Surveillance of pancreatic cysts focuses on the detection of (mostly morphologic) features warranting surgery. European guidelines consider elevated CA19.9 as a relative indication for surgery. We aimed to evaluate the role of CA19.9 monitoring for early detection and management in a cyst surveillance population. Methods: The PACYFIC-registry is a prospective collaboration that investigates the yield of pancreatic cyst surveillance performed at the discretion of the treating physician. We included participants for whom at least one serum CA19.9 value was determined by a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Results: Of 1865 PACYFIC participants, 685 met the inclusion criteria for this study (mean age 67 years, SD 10; 61% female). During a median follow-up of 25 months (IQR 24, 1966 visits), 29 participants developed high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or pancreatic cancer. At baseline, CA19.9 ranged from 1 to 591 kU/L (median 10 kU/L [IQR 14]), and was elevated (& GE;37 kU/L) in 64 participants (9%). During 191 of 1966 visits (10%), an elevated CA19.9 was detected, and these visits more often led to an intensified follow-up (42%) than those without an elevated CA19.9 (27%; p < 0.001). An elevated CA19.9 was the sole reason for surgery in five participants with benign disease (10%). The baseline CA19.9 value was (as continuous or dichotomous variable at the 37 kU/L threshold) not independently associated with HGD or pancreatic cancer development, whilst a CA19.9 of & GE; 133 kU/L was (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1-13, p = 0.03). Conclusions: In this pancreatic cyst surveillance cohort, CA19.9 monitoring caused substantial harm by shortening surveillance intervals (and performance of unnecessary surgery). The current CA19.9 cutoff was not predictive of HGD and pancreatic cancer, whereas a higher cutoff may decrease false-positive values. The role of CA19.9 monitoring should be critically appraised prior to implementation in surveillance programs and guidelines. Show less
Background: Treatment of bile duct injuries (BDI) during cholecystectomy depends on the severity of injury and the timing of diagnosis. Standard of care for severe BDIs is hepaticojejunostomy. The... Show moreBackground: Treatment of bile duct injuries (BDI) during cholecystectomy depends on the severity of injury and the timing of diagnosis. Standard of care for severe BDIs is hepaticojejunostomy. The aim of this retrospective multi-center study was to assess the optimal timing for repair of BDI with hepaticojejunostomy.Methods: Members of the European-African HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association were invited to report all consecutive patients with hepaticojejunostomy after BDI from January 2000 to June 2016. Patients were stratified according to the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy: early (day 0-7), intermediate (1-6 weeks) and late (6 weeks-6 months). Primary endpoint was re-intervention >90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy and secondary endpoints were severe 90-day complications and liver-related mortality.Results: In total 913 patients from 48 centers were included in the analysis. In 401 patients (44%) the bile duct injury was diagnosed intraoperatively, and 126 patients (14%) suffered from concomitant vascular injury. In multivariable analysis the timing of hepaticojejunostomy had no impact on postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention after 90 days nor liver-related mortality. The rate of re-intervention more than 90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy was significantly increased in male patients but decreased in older patients. Severe co-morbidity increased the risk for liver-related mortality (HR 3.439; CI 1.37-8.65; p = 0.009).Conclusion: After BDI occurring during cholecystectomy, the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy did not have any impact on severe postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention or liver-related mortality. Individualised treatment after iatrogenic bile duct injury is still advisable. Show less
