PurposeDistal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30-50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF... Show morePurposeDistal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30-50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort.MethodsThis nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.ResultsA total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68-0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64-0.74).ConclusionThe current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial. Show less
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
Timmerhuis, H.C.; Berg, F.F. van den; Noorda, P.C.; Dijk, S.M. van; Grinsven, J. van; Weiland, C.J.S.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatitis Study Grp 2023
Objective: The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing... Show moreObjective: The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing pancreatitis remain unknown.Summary Background Data: International guidelines recommend broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients with suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This recommendation is not based on high-level evidence and clinical effects are unknown.Materials and Methods: This study is a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort of 401 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in 15 Dutch centers (2010-2019). Across the patient population from the time of admission to 6 months postadmission, multivariable regression analyses were used to analyze (1) microbiological cultures and (2) antibiotic use.Results: Antibiotics were started in 321/401 patients (80%) administered at a median of 5 days (P25-P75: 1-13) after admission. The median duration of antibiotics was 27 days (P25-P75: 15-48). In 221/321 patients (69%) infection was not proven by cultures at the time of initiation of antibiotics. Empirical antibiotics for infected necrosis provided insufficient coverage in 64/128 patients (50%) with a pancreatic culture. Prolonged antibiotic therapy was associated with Enterococcus infection (OR 1.08 [95% CI 1.03-1.16], P=0.01). Enterococcus infection was associated with new/persistent organ failure (OR 3.08 [95% CI 1.35-7.29], P<0.01) and mortality (OR 5.78 [95% CI 1.46-38.73], P=0.03). Yeast was found in 30/147 cultures (20%).Discussion: In this nationwide study of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, the vast majority received antibiotics, typically administered early in the disease course and without a proven infection. Empirical antibiotics were inappropriate based on pancreatic cultures in half the patients. Future clinical research and practice must consider antibiotic selective pressure due to prolonged therapy and coverage of Enterococcus and yeast. Improved guidelines on antimicrobial diagnostics and therapy could reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and improve clinical outcomes. Show less
Background: Practice variation exists in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, but little is known about the potential causes and consequences as large studies are lacking. This study... Show moreBackground: Practice variation exists in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, but little is known about the potential causes and consequences as large studies are lacking. This study explores the potential causes and consequences of practice variation in venous resection during pan-creatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands.Methods: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing pan-creatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centers from 2013 through 2017.Results: Among 1,311 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 351 (27%) had a venous resection, and the overall median annual center volume of venous resection was 4. No association was found between the center volume of pancreatoduodenectomy and the rate of venous resections, nor between patient and tumor characteristics and the rate of venous resections per center. Female sex, lower body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, venous involvement, and stenosis on imaging were predictive for venous resection. Adjusted for these factors, 3 centers performed significantly more, and 3 centers performed significantly fewer venous resections than expected. In patients with venous resection, significantly less major morbidity (22% vs 38%) and longer overall survival (median 16 vs 12 months) were observed in centers with an above-median annual volume of venous resections (>4).Conclusion: Patient and tumor characteristics did not explain significant practice variation between centers in the Netherlands in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The clinical outcomes of venous resection might be related to the volume of the procedure. Show less
Objective:The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors, clinical course and treatment of perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a large unselected cohort... Show moreObjective:The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors, clinical course and treatment of perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a large unselected cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Background:Perforation and fistula of the GI tract may occur in necrotizing pancreatitis. Data from large unselected patient populations on the incidence, risk factors, clinical outcomes, and treatment are lacking. Methods:We performed a post hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective database of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. GI tract perforation and fistula were defined as spontaneous or iatrogenic discontinuation of the GI wall. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore risk factors and to adjust for confounders to explore associations of the GI tract perforation and fistula on the clinical course. Results:A perforation or fistula of the GI tract was identified in 139 (16%) patients, located in the stomach in 23 (14%), duodenum in 56 (35%), jejunum or ileum in 18 (11%), and colon in 64 (40%). Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours after admission [odds ratio (OR): 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.39] and early organ failure (OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.78-4.29). Prior invasive intervention was a risk factor for developing a perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract (OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.04-6.60). While perforation or fistula of the upper GI tract appeared to be protective for persistent intensive care unit-admission (OR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.44) and persistent organ failure (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02-0.58), perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract was associated with a higher rate of new onset organ failure (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.23-4.84). When the stomach or duodenum was affected, treatment was mostly conservative (n=54, 68%). Treatment was mostly surgical when the colon was affected (n=38, 59%). Conclusions:Perforation and fistula of the GI tract occurred in one out of six patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours and early organ failure. Prior intervention was identified as a risk factor for perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract. The clinical course was mostly affected by involvement of the lower GI tract. Show less
Objective:To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals. Background:For proper comparisons... Show moreObjective:To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals. Background:For proper comparisons of outcomes in surgical audits, case-mix variation should be accounted for. Methods:This study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Derivation of the score was performed with the data from 2014 to 2018 and validation with 2019 to 2020 data. The primary endpoint of the study was POPF (grade B or C). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for case-mix adjustment of known risk factors. Results:In the derivation cohort, 3271 patients were included, of whom 479 (14.6%) developed POPF. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.66], higher body mass index (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), a final diagnosis other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.90-3.06), and a smaller duct diameter (OR=1.43/mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.32-1.55) were independently associated with POPF. Diabetes mellitus (OR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98) was independently associated with a decreased risk of POPF. Model discrimination was good with a C-statistic of 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort (n=913). Hospitals differed in particular in the proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis patients, ranging from 36.0% to 58.1%. The observed POPF risk per center ranged from 2.9% to 25.4%. The expected POPF rate based on the 5 risk factors ranged from 11.6% to 18.0% among hospitals. Conclusions:The auditing fistula risk score was successful in case-mix adjustment and enables fair comparisons of POPF rates among hospitals. Show less
Objective:To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit. Background:Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve... Show moreObjective:To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit. Background:Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve outcome after pancreatic surgery. These include collaborative projects, clinical auditing, and implementation of an algorithm for early recognition and management of postoperative complications. However, nationwide changes in outcome over time have not yet been described. Methods:This nationwide cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy from the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (January 2014-December 2019). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between 3 time periods (2014-2015, 2016-2017, and 2018-2019). Short-term surgical outcome was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary endpoints were failure to rescue (FTR) and in-hospital mortality. Results:Overall, 5345 patients were included, of whom 4227 after PD and 1118 after distal pancreatectomy. After PD, FTR improved from 13% to 7.4% [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, P<0.001] and in-hospital mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.4% (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P=0.001), despite operating on more patients with age >75 years (18%-22%, P=0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists score & GE;3 (19%-31%, P<0.001) and Charlson comorbidity score & GE;2 (24%-34%, P<0.001). The rates of textbook outcome (57%-55%, P=0.283) and major complications remained stable (31%-33%, P=0.207), whereas complication-related intensive care admission decreased (13%-9%, P=0.002). After distal pancreatectomy, improvements in FTR from 8.8% to 5.9% (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.37, P=0.253) and in-hospital mortality from 1.6% to 1.3% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, P=0.711) were not statistically significant. Conclusions:During the first 6 years of a nationwide audit, in-hospital mortality and FTR after PD improved despite operating on more high-risk patients. Several collaborative efforts may have contributed to these improvements. Show less
Stoop, T.F.; Mackay, T.M.; Brada, L.J.H.; Harst, E. van der; Daams, F.; Land, F.R. van 't; ... ; Dutch Pancreatic Canc Grp 2022
Introduction: Arterial resections in pancreatic surgery may be planned to obtain a radical oncological resection, or unplanned after iatrogenic injury during dissection. Most data on planned... Show moreIntroduction: Arterial resections in pancreatic surgery may be planned to obtain a radical oncological resection, or unplanned after iatrogenic injury during dissection. Most data on planned arterial resection come from single, very-high-volume centres and suggest that these resections might be feasible and even beneficial after preoperative chemotherapy in highly selected patients with pancreatic cancer1–3. However, real-world data on such planned and unplanned arterial resection at a nationwide level are scarce4. Furthermore, distinctions between planned and unplanned arterial resection are seldomly reported, even though this might have clinical implications. The present study evaluated the incidence and surgical outcome of all planned and unplanned arterial resections for pancreatic and periampullary cancer in The Netherlands. Show less
IMPORTANCE: Glucose control in patients after total pancreatectomy is problematic because of the complete absence of alpha- and beta-cells, leading to impaired quality of life. A novel, bihormonal... Show moreIMPORTANCE: Glucose control in patients after total pancreatectomy is problematic because of the complete absence of alpha- and beta-cells, leading to impaired quality of life. A novel, bihormonal artificial pancreas (BIHAP), using both insulin and glucagon, may improve glucose control, but studies in this setting are lacking.OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of the BIHAP in patients after total pancreatectomy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized crossover clinical trial compared the fully closed-loop BIHAP with current diabetes care (ie, insulin pump or pen therapy) in 12 adult outpatients after total pancreatectomy. Patients were recruited between August 21 and November 16, 2020. This first-in-patient study began with a feasibility phase in 2 patients. Subsequently, 12 patients were randomly assigned to 7-day treatment with the BIHAP (preceded by a 5-day training period) followed by 7-day treatment with current diabetes care, or the same treatments in reverse order. Statistical analysis was by Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests, with significance set at a 2-sided P < .05.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomewas the percentage of time spent in euglycemia (70-180mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring.RESULTS: In total, 12 patients (7 men and 3 women; median [IQR] age, 62.5 [43.1-74.0] years) were randomly assigned, of whom 3 did not complete the BIHAP phase and 1 was replaced. The time spent in euglycemia was significantly higher during treatment with the BIHAP (median, 78.30%; IQR, 71.05%-82.61%) than current diabetes care (median, 57.38%; IQR, 52.38%-81.35%; P = .03). In addition, the time spent in hypoglycemia (<70mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]) was lower with the BIHAP (median, 0.00% [IQR, 0.00%-0.07%] vs 1.61% [IQR, 0.80%-3.81%]; P = .004). No serious adverse events occurred.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients using the BIHAP after total pancreatectomy experienced an increased percentage of time in euglycemia and a reduced percentage of time in hypoglycemia compared with current diabetes care, without apparent safety risks. Larger randomized trials, including longer periods of treatment and an assessment of quality of life, should confirm these findings. 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
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
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
Background: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are... Show moreBackground: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival.Methods: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017).Results: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in majormorbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012).Conclusion: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Show less
Background Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are... Show moreBackground Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). Results A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). Conclusion In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.Of 1311 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 17 per cent underwent venous wedge resection and 10 per cent underwent venous segmental resection. Venous segmental, but not venous wedge, resection was associated with higher major morbidity rates (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to no venous resection. This nationwide study found worse short- and long-term outcomes in patients who had venous segmental resection. The results of this study urge the need for improving outcomes in patients who require venous segmental resection. Show less
