Background and Aims: For a highly selected group of patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), liver transplantation (LT) is a treatment option. The Dutch screening protocol... Show moreBackground and Aims: For a highly selected group of patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), liver transplantation (LT) is a treatment option. The Dutch screening protocol comprises nonregional lymph node (LN) assessment by EUS, and whenever LN metastases are identified, further LT screening is precluded. The aim of this study is to investigate the yield of EUS in patients with pCCA who are potentially eligible for LT. Methods: In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, all consecutive patients with suspected unresectable pCCA who underwent EUS in the screening protocol for LT were included from 2011 to 2021. During EUS, sampling of a “suspicious” nonregional LN was performed based on the endoscopist’s discretion. The primary outcome was the added value of EUS, defined as the number of patients who were precluded from further screening because of malignant LNs. Results: A total of 75 patients were included in whom 84 EUS procedures were performed, with EUS-guided tissue acquisition confirming malignancy in LNs in 3 of 75 (4%) patients. In the 43 who underwent surgical staging according to the protocol, nonregional LNs with malignancy were identified in 6 (14%) patients. Positive regional LNs were found in 7 patients in post-LT-resected specimens. Conclusions: Our current EUS screening for the detection of malignant LNs in patients with pCCA eligible for LT shows a limited but clinically important yield. EUS with systematic screening of all LN stations, both regional and nonregional, and the sampling of suspicious lymph nodes according to defined and set criteria could potentially increase this yield. (Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:548-56.) Show less
Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based... Show moreImportance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Show less
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: The Mayo protocol for liver transplantation in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is based on strict selection and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The role of... Show moreBackground: The Mayo protocol for liver transplantation in patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is based on strict selection and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in this scenario remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using strict selection criteria, either with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods: This was an international, multicentre, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent transplantation between 2011 and 2020 for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using the Mayo selection criteria and receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or not receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Endpoints were post-transplant survival, post-transplant morbidity rate, and time to recurrence. Results: Of 49 patients who underwent liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, 27 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 22 did not. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year post-transplantation survival rates were 65 per cent, 51 per cent and 41 per cent respectively in the group receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 91 per cent, 68 per cent and 53 per cent respectively in the group not receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (1-year hazards ratio (HR) 4.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.98 to 21.13), P = 0.053; 3-year HR 2.07 (95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 5.54), P = 0.146; 5-year HR 1.71 (95 per cent c.i. 0.71 to 4.09), P = 0.229). Hepatic vascular complications were more frequent in the group receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with the group not receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nine of 27 versus two of 22, P = 0.045). In multivariable analysis, tumour recurrence occurred less frequently in the group receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (HR 0.30 (95 per cent c.i. 0.09 to 0.97), P = 0.044). Conclusion: In selected patients undergoing liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy resulted in a lower risk of tumour recurrence, but was associated with a higher rate of early hepatic vascular complications. Adjustments in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reducing the risk of hepatic vascular complications, such as omitting radiotherapy, may further improve the outcome in patients undergoing liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.This international, multicentre study presents for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, a comparison of two cohorts of patients who underwent transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using the Mayo Clinic selection criteria and either received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or did not receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy resulted in a lower risk of tumour recurrence, but was associated with a higher rate of early hepatic vascular complications. Adjustments in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reducing the risk of hepatic vascular complications may further improve the outcome in patients undergoing liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Show less
Background: Management of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA), is multidisciplinary and subject to practice variation. We aimed to evaluate variation in clinical... Show moreBackground: Management of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA), is multidisciplinary and subject to practice variation. We aimed to evaluate variation in clinical management of FNH and HCA in Europe.Methods: We distributed an online survey (November 2021-March 2022) among 294 European experts. The survey included questions on local practice and included eight clinical vignettes. The clinical vignettes focused on FNH or HCA management in the setting of sex, lifestyle modifi-cation, and pregnancy.Results: The response rate was 32% and respondents included surgeons (38%), gastroenterolo-gists/hepatologists (25%), radiologists (32%), and pathologists (1.6%) from ten European coun-tries. We observed practice variation with regard to lifestyle modification and imaging follow-up in patients with FNH, and with regard to the management of HCA >5 cm before and during pregnancy. Finally, the management of HCA >5 cm after lifestyle modification deviated from EASL guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Our survey illustrates variability in FNH and HCA management in Europe. Several areas were identified for future research and guideline recommendations, including FNH follow-up and the management of HCA >5 cm. We propose the organization of Delphi consensus meet-ings to prioritize areas of research and update current guidelines to optimize management for all patients with benign liver tumors.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. Show less
BackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in... Show moreBackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life.Methods/designPACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide.DiscussionThe PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018. Show less
