1
|
Rangelova E, Stoop TF, van Ramshorst TME, Ali M, van Bodegraven EA, Javed AA, Hashimoto D, Steyerberg E, Banerjee A, Jain A, Sauvanet A, Serrablo A, Giani A, Giardino A, Zerbi A, Arshad A, Wijma AG, Coratti A, Zironda A, Socratous A, Rojas A, Halimi A, Ejaz A, Oba A, Patel BY, Björnsson B, Reames BN, Tingstedt B, Goh BKP, Payá-Llorente C, Del Pozo CD, González-Abós C, Medin C, van Eijck CHJ, de Ponthaud C, Takishita C, Schwabl C, Månsson C, Ricci C, Thiels CA, Douchi D, Hughes DL, Kilburn D, Flanking D, Kleive D, Silva DS, Edil BH, Pando E, Moltzer E, Kauffman EF, Warren E, Bozkurt E, Sparrelid E, Thoma E, Verkolf E, Ausania F, Giannone F, Hüttner FJ, Burdio F, Souche FR, Berrevoet F, Daams F, Motoi F, Saliba G, Kazemier G, Roeyen G, Nappo G, Butturini G, Ferrari G, Kito Fusai G, Honda G, Sergeant G, Karteszi H, Takami H, Suto H, Matsumoto I, Mora-Oliver I, Frigerio I, Fabre JM, Chen J, Sham JG, Davide J, Urdzik J, de Martino J, Nielsen K, Okano K, Kamei K, Okada K, Tanaka K, Labori KJ, Goodsell KE, Alberici L, Webber L, Kirkov L, de Franco L, Miyashita M, Maglione M, Gramellini M, Ramera M, Amaral MJ, et alRangelova E, Stoop TF, van Ramshorst TME, Ali M, van Bodegraven EA, Javed AA, Hashimoto D, Steyerberg E, Banerjee A, Jain A, Sauvanet A, Serrablo A, Giani A, Giardino A, Zerbi A, Arshad A, Wijma AG, Coratti A, Zironda A, Socratous A, Rojas A, Halimi A, Ejaz A, Oba A, Patel BY, Björnsson B, Reames BN, Tingstedt B, Goh BKP, Payá-Llorente C, Del Pozo CD, González-Abós C, Medin C, van Eijck CHJ, de Ponthaud C, Takishita C, Schwabl C, Månsson C, Ricci C, Thiels CA, Douchi D, Hughes DL, Kilburn D, Flanking D, Kleive D, Silva DS, Edil BH, Pando E, Moltzer E, Kauffman EF, Warren E, Bozkurt E, Sparrelid E, Thoma E, Verkolf E, Ausania F, Giannone F, Hüttner FJ, Burdio F, Souche FR, Berrevoet F, Daams F, Motoi F, Saliba G, Kazemier G, Roeyen G, Nappo G, Butturini G, Ferrari G, Kito Fusai G, Honda G, Sergeant G, Karteszi H, Takami H, Suto H, Matsumoto I, Mora-Oliver I, Frigerio I, Fabre JM, Chen J, Sham JG, Davide J, Urdzik J, de Martino J, Nielsen K, Okano K, Kamei K, Okada K, Tanaka K, Labori KJ, Goodsell KE, Alberici L, Webber L, Kirkov L, de Franco L, Miyashita M, Maglione M, Gramellini M, Ramera M, Amaral MJ, Ramaekers M, Truty MJ, van Dam MA, Stommel MWJ, Petrikowski M, Imamura M, Hayashi M, D'Hondt M, Brunner M, Hogg ME, Zhang C, Suárez-Muñoz MÁ, Luyer MD, Unno M, Mizuma M, Janot M, Sahakyan MA, Jamieson NB, Busch OR, Bilge O, Belyaev O, Franklin O, Sánchez-Velázquez P, Pessaux P, Holka PS, Ghorbani P, Casadei R, Sartoris R, Schulick RD, Grützmann R, Sutcliffe R, Mata R, Patel RB, Takahashi R, Rodriguez Franco S, Cabús SS, Hirano S, Gaujoux S, Festen S, Kozono S, Maithel SK, Chai SM, Yamaki S, van Laarhoven S, Mieog JSD, Murakami T, Codjia T, Sumiyoshi T, Karsten TM, Nakamura T, Sugawara T, Boggi U, Hartman V, de Meijer VE, Bartholomä W, Kwon W, Koh YX, Cho Y, Takeyama Y, Inoue Y, Nagakawa Y, Kawamoto Y, Ome Y, Soonawalla Z, Uemura K, Wolfgang CL, Jang JY, Padbury R, Satoi S, Messersmith W, Wilmink JW, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG, Del Chiaro M. The impact of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with left-sided resectable pancreatic cancer: an international multicenter study. Ann Oncol 2025; 36:529-542. [PMID: 39814200 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.12.015] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2024] [Revised: 10/26/2024] [Accepted: 12/23/2024] [Indexed: 01/18/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Left-sided pancreatic cancer is associated with worse overall survival (OS) compared with right-sided pancreatic cancer. Although neoadjuvant therapy is currently seen as not effective in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC), current randomized trials included mostly patients with right-sided RPC. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between neoadjuvant therapy and OS in patients with left-sided RPC compared with upfront surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was an international multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for pathology-proven RPC, either after neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery in 76 centers from 18 countries on 4 continents (2013-2019). The primary endpoint was OS from diagnosis. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was carried out to investigate the association of neoadjuvant therapy with OS, adjusting for confounders at the time of diagnosis. Adjusted OS probabilities were calculated. RESULTS Overall, 2282 patients after left-sided pancreatic resection for RPC were included of whom 290 patients (13%) received neoadjuvant therapy. The most common neoadjuvant regimens were (m)FOLFIRINOX (38%) and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (22%). After upfront surgery, 72% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, mostly a single-agent regimen (74%). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged OS compared with upfront surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.83) with an adjusted median OS of 53 versus 37 months (P = 0.0003) and adjusted 5-year OS rates of 47% versus 35% (P = 0.0001) compared with upfront surgery. Interaction analysis demonstrated a stronger effect of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with a larger tumor (Pinteraction = 0.003) and higher serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9; Pinteraction = 0.005). In contrast, the effect of neoadjuvant therapy was not enhanced for splenic artery (Pinteraction = 0.43), splenic vein (Pinteraction = 0.30), retroperitoneal (Pinteraction = 0.84), and multivisceral (Pinteraction = 0.96) involvement. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant therapy in patients with left-sided RPC was associated with improved OS compared with upfront surgery. The impact of neoadjuvant therapy increased with larger tumor size and higher serum CA19-9 at diagnosis. Randomized controlled trials on neoadjuvant therapy specifically in patients with left-sided RPC are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Rangelova
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
| | - T F Stoop
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
| | - T M E van Ramshorst
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Instituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - M Ali
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E A van Bodegraven
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A A Javed
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York, USA
| | - D Hashimoto
- Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan
| | - E Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - A Banerjee
- HPB & Liver Transplant Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - A Jain
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, USA
| | - A Sauvanet
- Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, APHP Beaujon Hospital, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
| | - A Serrablo
- HPB Surgical Division, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - A Giani
- Division of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - A Giardino
- Department of HPB Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Peschiera, Italy
| | - A Zerbi
- Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Milan, Italy; Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - A Arshad
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - A G Wijma
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - A Coratti
- General and Emergency Surgery Unit, Misericordia Hospital, Azienda USL Toscana Sud-Est, Grosseto, Italy
| | - A Zironda
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - A Socratous
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - A Rojas
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, USA
| | - A Halimi
- Department of Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Division of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Ejaz
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
| | - A Oba
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Ariake, Tokyo, Japan
| | - B Y Patel
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - B Björnsson
- Department of Surgery, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
| | - B N Reames
- Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA
| | - B Tingstedt
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Surgery, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - B K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - C Payá-Llorente
- General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain
| | - C D Del Pozo
- General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain
| | - C González-Abós
- Hepatobiliopancreatic Department, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C Medin
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, USA
| | - C H J van Eijck
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C de Ponthaud
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - C Takishita
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - C Schwabl
- Department of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - C Månsson
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - C Ricci
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - C A Thiels
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - D Douchi
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
| | - D L Hughes
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - D Kilburn
- Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - D Flanking
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - D Kleive
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - D S Silva
- HEBIPA Surgery, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
| | - B H Edil
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, USA
| | - E Pando
- Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Moltzer
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - E F Kauffman
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - E Warren
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, USA
| | - E Bozkurt
- Department of General Surgery, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - E Sparrelid
- Division of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - E Thoma
- Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - E Verkolf
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Ausania
- Hepatobiliopancreatic Department, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
| | - F Giannone
- Department of Visceral and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | - F J Hüttner
- Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - F Burdio
- Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital del Mar de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital del Mar Research Institute (IMIM), University Pompeu-Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F R Souche
- Oncologic & Minimally-Invasive Digestive Surgery, CHU Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - F Berrevoet
- Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - F Daams
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Motoi
- Department of Surgery, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Japan
| | - G Saliba
- Division of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - G Kazemier
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Roeyen
- Department of HPB, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - G Nappo
- Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Milan, Italy; Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - G Butturini
- Department of HPB Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Peschiera, Italy
| | - G Ferrari
- Division of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - G Kito Fusai
- HPB & Liver Transplant Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
| | - G Honda
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - G Sergeant
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Jessa Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiteit Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium
| | - H Karteszi
- Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - H Takami
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
| | - H Suto
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - I Matsumoto
- Department of Surgery, Kindai University, Osakasayama, Japan
| | - I Mora-Oliver
- Department of Surgery, Liver and Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valencia, Biomedical Research Institute, INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain
| | - I Frigerio
- Department of HPB Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Peschiera, Italy
| | - J M Fabre
- Oncologic & Minimally-Invasive Digestive Surgery, CHU Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - J Chen
- Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - J G Sham
- Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, USA
| | - J Davide
- HEBIPA Surgery, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
| | - J Urdzik
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - J de Martino
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - K Nielsen
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - K Okano
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - K Kamei
- Department of Surgery, Kindai University, Osakasayama, Japan
| | - K Okada
- Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - K Tanaka
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - K J Labori
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - K E Goodsell
- Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - L Alberici
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - L Webber
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Austria
| | - L Kirkov
- Oncologic & Minimally-Invasive Digestive Surgery, CHU Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - L de Franco
- General and Emergency Surgery Unit, Misericordia Hospital, Azienda USL Toscana Sud-Est, Grosseto, Italy
| | - M Miyashita
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Ariake, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M Maglione
- Department of Visceral, Transplant, and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - M Gramellini
- Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Milan, Italy; Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M Ramera
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Instituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy; Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - M J Amaral
- General Surgery Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - M Ramaekers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M J Truty
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - M A van Dam
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - M W J Stommel
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - M Petrikowski
- Department of Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - M Imamura
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - M Hayashi
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
| | - M D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - M Brunner
- Department of Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - M E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, USA
| | - C Zhang
- Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA
| | - M Á Suárez-Muñoz
- HPB Surgical Unit, University Hospital Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain
| | - M D Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M Unno
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
| | - M Mizuma
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
| | - M Janot
- Department of Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - M A Sahakyan
- The Intervention Center, Oslo University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | - N B Jamieson
- Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - O R Busch
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O Bilge
- Department of General Surgery, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - O Belyaev
- Department of Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - O Franklin
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA; Department of Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - P Sánchez-Velázquez
- Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital del Mar de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital del Mar Research Institute (IMIM), University Pompeu-Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
| | - P Pessaux
- Department of Visceral and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
| | - P S Holka
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Surgery, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - P Ghorbani
- Division of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - R Casadei
- Department of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - R Sartoris
- Department of Radiology, APHP Beaujon Hospital, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
| | - R D Schulick
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
| | - R Grützmann
- The Intervention Center, Oslo University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | - R Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - R Mata
- Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - R B Patel
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
| | - R Takahashi
- Department of Surgery, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Japan
| | - S Rodriguez Franco
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
| | - S S Cabús
- Department of HPB Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Hirano
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - S Gaujoux
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - S Festen
- Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Kozono
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S K Maithel
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, USA
| | - S M Chai
- Department of Anatomical Pathology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Perth, Australia
| | - S Yamaki
- Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan
| | - S van Laarhoven
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of HPB Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - J S D Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - T Murakami
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - T Codjia
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - T Sumiyoshi
- Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - T M Karsten
- Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T Nakamura
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - T Sugawara
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo
| | - U Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - V Hartman
- Department of HPB, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - V E de Meijer
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - W Bartholomä
- Department of Radiology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - W Kwon
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Y X Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Y Cho
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Y Takeyama
- Department of Surgery, Kindai University, Osakasayama, Japan
| | - Y Inoue
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Ariake, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Y Nagakawa
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Y Kawamoto
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Y Ome
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Z Soonawalla
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - K Uemura
- Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - C L Wolfgang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York, USA
| | - J Y Jang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - R Padbury
- Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - S Satoi
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA; Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan
| | - W Messersmith
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA
| | - J W Wilmink
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Abu Hilal
- Department of HPB Surgery, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Peschiera, Italy
| | - M G Besselink
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Del Chiaro
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Henry AC, Smits FJ, Daamen LA, Busch OR, Bosscha K, van Dam RM, van Dam CJL, van Eijck CH, Festen S, van der Harst E, de Hingh IHJT, Kazemier G, Liem MS, de Meijer VE, Noordzij P, Patijn GA, Schreinemakers JMJ, Stommel MWJ, Bonsing BA, Koerkamp BG, Besselink MG, Verdonk RC, van Santvoort HC, Molenaar IQ. Root-cause analysis of mortality after pancreatic resection in a nationwide cohort. HPB (Oxford) 2025; 27:461-469. [PMID: 39848897 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2024] [Revised: 10/17/2024] [Accepted: 11/28/2024] [Indexed: 01/25/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluates leading causes of in-hospital mortality after pancreatic resection nationwide to determine areas for improvement. METHODS This observational cohort study included all in-hospital mortality after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands (2014-2019). Each fatality was considered to be caused by local complications (i.e. directly related to surgery, located in surgical area) or systemic complications (e.g. cardiac or pulmonary). A blinded Expert Committee reviewed the postoperative course leading to death and identified potential quality improvement measures. RESULTS Out of 5345 patients undergoing pancreatic resection, 149 patients (2.8 %) died in-hospital. Local complications caused death in 126 patients (85 %) and systemic complications in 23 patients (15 %). Concerning local complications, the common leading causes of death were postoperative pancreatic fistula (n = 41) and thrombosis of vascular reconstructions (n = 23). Systemic cardiac (n = 8) and pulmonary (n = 7) complications caused death frequently. Potential areas for improvement were failure to rescue (n = 89; 60 %), prevention of complications (n = 34, 23 %) and patient selection (n = 14; 9 %). CONCLUSION Local complications often caused death after pancreatic resection, mainly pancreatic fistula and vascular reconstruction failure. Failure to rescue was considered the most important area for improvement to decrease in-hospital mortality further.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Claire Henry
- Depts. of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - F Jasmijn Smits
- Depts. of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lois A Daamen
- Depts. of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Dept. of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Koop Bosscha
- Dept. of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Geert Kazemier
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dept. of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mike S Liem
- Dept. of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Vincent E de Meijer
- Dept. of Surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Peter Noordzij
- Dept. of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dept. of Intensive Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Martijn W J Stommel
- Dept. of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bert A Bonsing
- Dept. of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Bas G Koerkamp
- Dept. of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Dept. of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Robert C Verdonk
- Dept. of Gastroenterology, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hjalmar C van Santvoort
- Depts. of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Depts. of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wismans LV, Hendriks TE, Suurmeijer JA, Nuyttens JJ, Bruynzeel AM, Intven MP, van Driel LM, Haen R, de Wilde RF, Groot Koerkamp B, Busch OR, Stoker J, Verheij J, Farina A, de Boer OJ, Doukas M, de Hingh IH, Lips DJ, van der Harst E, van Tienhoven G, van Eijck CH, Besselink MG. Preoperative stereotactic radiotherapy to prevent pancreatic fistula in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (FIBROPANC): prospective multicentre phase II single-arm trial. Br J Surg 2025; 112:znae327. [PMID: 39891429 PMCID: PMC11785728 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znae327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2024] [Revised: 12/18/2024] [Accepted: 12/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/03/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the main driver of morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. In high-risk patients, the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula approaches 50%, whereas it is below 5% in patients with pancreatic cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy on the pancreatic neck transection margin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula. METHODS In this prospective multicentre open-label single-arm trial (progressing from a safety run-in phase to a phase II design), patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for neoplasms other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma received a single preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy dose of 12 Gy. Primary endpoints included safety (less than or equal to 15% grade 3-5 toxicity), feasibility (a significant change in pancreatic texture measured using a durometer), and efficacy (a 15% reduction in the grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula rate compared with patients from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit who were eligible but not included in this study). Secondary endpoints assessed tissue fibrosis (collagen density). RESULTS Overall, 38 patients were included, of whom 33 (87%) completed the study protocol and were included in the per-protocol analysis. The safety cut-off was met, with 3% grade 3-5 toxicity. Pancreatic tissue treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy showed increased firmness using a durometer (median of 47 (interquartile range 36-57) versus 37 (interquartile range 30-41) Shore OO units; P < 0.001) and a higher collagen density (median of 6.1% (interquartile range 4.4%-9.5%) versus 4.6% (interquartile range 2.5%-7.4%); P = 0.003). The grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula rate with stereotactic body radiotherapy was 57.6% (95% c.i. 41% to 74%), compared with 34% (95% c.i. 27% to 42%) in audit controls (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION Preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy is safe in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and increases parenchymal firmness and fibrosis, but fails to show evidence of efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonoor V Wismans
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa E Hendriks
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Annelie Suurmeijer
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joost J Nuyttens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anna M Bruynzeel
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn P Intven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lydi M van Driel
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Haen
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roeland F de Wilde
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jaap Stoker
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joanne Verheij
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arantza Farina
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Onno J de Boer
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michail Doukas
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace H de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Daan J Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Casper H van Eijck
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Suurmeijer JA, Wismans LV, Hendriks TE, Bruynzeel AM, Nuyttens JJ, Intven MP, van Driel LM, Groot Koerkamp B, Busch OR, Stoker JJ, Verheij J, Farina A, Doukas M, de Hingh IH, Lips DJ, van der Harst E, van Tienhoven G, Besselink MG, van Eijck CH. Feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of preoperative stereotactic radiotherapy on the future pancreatic neck transection margin to reduce the risk of pancreatic fistula after high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy (FIBROPANC): protocol for a multicentre, single-arm trial. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e087193. [PMID: 39317507 PMCID: PMC11423754 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2024] [Accepted: 09/06/2024] [Indexed: 09/26/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurs in 25% of patients undergoing a high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and is a driving cause of major morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stay and increased costs after PD. There is a need for perioperative methods to decrease these risks. In recent studies, preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) reduced the rate of POPF seemingly due to radiation-induced pancreatic fibrosis. However, patients with a high risk of POPF mostly have a non-pancreatic periampullary tumour and do not receive radiotherapy. Prospective studies using radiotherapy specifically to reduce the risk of POPF have not been performed. We aim to assess the safety, feasibility and preliminary efficacy of preoperative stereotactic radiotherapy on the future pancreatic neck transection margin to reduce the rate of POPF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this multicentre, single-arm, phase II trial, we aim to assess the feasibility and safety of a single fraction of preoperative stereotactic radiotherapy (12 Gy) to a 4 cm area around the future pancreatic neck transection margin in patients at high risk of developing POPF after PD aimed to reduce the risk of grade B/C POPF. Adult patients scheduled for PD for malignant and premalignant periampullary tumours, excluding PDAC, with a pancreatic duct diameter ≤3 mm will be included in centres participating in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. The primary outcome is the safety and feasibility of single-dose preoperative stereotactic radiotherapy before PD. The most relevant secondary outcomes are grade B/C POPF and the difference in the extent of fibrosis between the radiated and non-radiated (uncinate margin) pancreas. Evaluation of endpoints will be performed after inclusion of 33 eligible patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval was obtained by the Amsterdam UMC's accredited Medical Research Ethics Committee (METC). All included patients are required to have provided written informed consent. The results of this trial will be used to determine the need for a randomised controlled phase III trial and submitted to a high-impact peer-reviewed medical journal regardless of the study outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NL72913 (Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects Registry) and NCT05641233 (ClinicalTrials).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Annelie Suurmeijer
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Leonoor V. Wismans
- Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tessa E. Hendriks
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Anna M. Bruynzeel
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joost J. Nuyttens
- Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdm, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn P.W. Intven
- Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier R. Busch
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jaap J. Stoker
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joanne Verheij
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arantza Farina
- Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michail Doukas
- Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace H.J. de Hingh
- Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Daan J. Lips
- Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Casper H.J. van Eijck
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - for the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdm, the Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
- Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Petrova E, Mazzella E, Wellner U, Keck T, Bausch D, Bechstein W, Schnitzbauer A. Monopolar electrocautery versus scalpel for pancreatic neck transection during open pancreatoduodenectomy: A retrospective, registry-based study. Surgery 2024; 176:420-426. [PMID: 38789356 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.03.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2023] [Revised: 01/27/2024] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The method of transecting the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatic resection may influence the rate of complications, including pancreatic fistula and bleeding. The objective of this study was to compare the transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatoduodenectomy with monopolar electrocautery versus scalpel in terms of postoperative complications. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patients with open pancreatoduodenectomy from the German DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry (January 2013 to December 2021) was performed. Transection of the pancreatic parenchyma with a scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery was compared regarding postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, and major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3) rates. Multivariable analysis with adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center cluster effect was performed. RESULTS Overall, 6,752 patients were included in the study. In 4,072 (60.3%), transection was performed with a scalpel and, in 2,680 (39.7%), with electrocautery. Transection with electrocautery was associated with higher postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (15.4% vs 12.8%; P = .003), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (11% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and major complications (33.4% vs 29.6%; P = .001) rates. In the multivariable analysis, after adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center, the association of the transection method with postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.2; P = .962), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (odds ratio = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.94-1.6; P = .127), and major complications (odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .297) was not significant. CONCLUSION The study found no significant association between transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during open pancreatoduodenectomy with a scalpel compared with monopolar electrocautery regarding pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, or overall major complication rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ekaterina Petrova
- Department of General, Visceral, Transplant, and Thoracic Surgery, Frankfurt University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.
| | - Elena Mazzella
- Department of General, Visceral, Transplant, and Thoracic Surgery, Frankfurt University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Ulrich Wellner
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Tobias Keck
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Dirk Bausch
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital of Ruhr University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Wolf Bechstein
- Department of General, Visceral, Transplant, and Thoracic Surgery, Frankfurt University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Andreas Schnitzbauer
- Department of General, Visceral, Transplant, and Thoracic Surgery, Frankfurt University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Li L, Kasza J, Recasens A, Ioannou L, Greenhill E, Merrett N, Cavallucci D, Ellis S, Madgwick H, Ko HS, Chantrill L, Loveday B, Nikfarjam M, Croagh D, Yang J, Dwyer A, Zalcberg J, Pilgrim C. SCANPatient: study protocol for a multi-centre, batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, randomised clinical trial of synoptic reporting of computerised tomography (CT) scans assessing cancers of the pancreas. Trials 2024; 25:388. [PMID: 38886755 PMCID: PMC11181632 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08196-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 05/22/2024] [Indexed: 06/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complete surgical removal of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is central to all curative treatment approaches for this aggressive disease, yet this is only possible in patients technically amenable to resection. Hence, an accurate assessment of whether patients are suitable for surgery is of paramount importance. The SCANPatient trial aims to test whether implementing a structured synoptic radiological report results in increased institutional accuracy in defining surgical resectability of non-metastatic PDAC. METHODS SCANPatient is a batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, cluster randomised clinical trial. The trial will be conducted at 33 Australian hospitals all of which hold regular multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDMs) to discuss newly diagnosed patients with PDAC. Each site is required to manage a minimum of 20 patients per year (across all stages). Hospitals will be randomised to begin synoptic reporting within a batched, stepped wedge design. Initially all hospitals will continue to use their current reporting method; within each batch, after each 6-month period, a randomly selected group of hospitals will commence using the synoptic reports, until all hospitals are using synoptic reporting. Each hospital will provide data from patients who (i) are aged 18 or older; (ii) have suspected PDAC and have an abdominal CT scan, and (iii) are presented at a participating MDM. Non-metastatic patients will be documented as one of the following categories: (1) locally advanced and surgically unresectable; (2) borderline resectable; or (3) anatomically clearly resectable (Note: Metastatic disease is treated as a separate category). Data collection will last for 36 months in each batch, and a total of 2400 patients will be included. DISCUSSION Better classifying patients with non-metastatic PDAC as having tumours that are either clearly resectable, borderline or locally advanced and unresectable may improve patient outcomes by optimising care and treatment planning. The borderline resectable group are a small but important cohort in whom surgery with curative intent may be considered; however, inconsistencies with definitions and an understanding of resectability status means these patients are often incorrectly classified and hence overlooked for curative options. TRIAL REGISTRATION The SCANPatient trial was registered on 17th May 2023 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12623000508673).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lin Li
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jessica Kasza
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ariadna Recasens
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Monash Program, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Liane Ioannou
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Elysia Greenhill
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Monash Program, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Neil Merrett
- Department of Surgery, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David Cavallucci
- Department of Surgery, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia
| | - Samantha Ellis
- Department of Radiology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Helen Madgwick
- CRP Consumer Reference Group, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Hyun Soo Ko
- Department of Cancer Imaging, The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lorraine Chantrill
- Department of Medical Oncology, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
- Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Benjamin Loveday
- Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Daniel Croagh
- Department of Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jessica Yang
- Department of Radiology, Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew Dwyer
- SA Node National Imaging Facility, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
| | - John Zalcberg
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Charles Pilgrim
- Cancer Research Program, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 5, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wismans LV, Suurmeijer JA, van Dongen JC, Bonsing BA, Van Santvoort HC, Wilmink JW, van Tienhoven G, de Hingh IH, Lips DJ, van der Harst E, de Meijer VE, Patijn GA, Bosscha K, Stommel MW, Festen S, den Dulk M, Nuyttens JJ, Intven MPW, de Vos-Geelen J, Molenaar IQ, Busch OR, Koerkamp BG, Besselink MG, van Eijck CHJ. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy but not chemotherapy is associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a nationwide analysis. Surgery 2024; 175:1580-1586. [PMID: 38448277 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.01.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 01/21/2024] [Indexed: 03/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative pancreatic fistula remains the leading cause of significant morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy has been described to reduce the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but randomized trials on neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma focus increasingly on preoperative chemotherapy rather than preoperative chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy on postoperative pancreatic fistula and other pancreatic-specific surgery related complications on a nationwide level. METHODS All patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included in the mandatory nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2020). Baseline and treatment characteristics were compared between immediate surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The relationship between preoperative chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Overall, 2,019 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included, of whom 1,678 underwent immediate surgery (83.1%), 192 (9.5%) received preoperative chemotherapy, and 149 (7.4%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 8.3% of patients after immediate surgery, 4.2% after preoperative chemotherapy, and 2.0% after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (P = .004). In multivariable analysis, the use of preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.69; P = .033) compared with immediate surgery, whereas preoperative chemotherapy was not (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.25; P = .199). Intraoperatively hard, or fibrotic pancreatic texture was most frequently observed after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (53% immediate surgery, 62% preoperative chemotherapy, 77% preoperative chemoradiotherapy, P < .001). CONCLUSION This nationwide analysis demonstrated that in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, only preoperative chemoradiotherapy, but not preoperative chemotherapy, was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonoor V Wismans
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Annelie Suurmeijer
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle C van Dongen
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bert A Bonsing
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - Hjalmar C Van Santvoort
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Johanna W Wilmink
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ignace H de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Daan J Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | | - Vincent E de Meijer
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Gijs A Patijn
- Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Koop Bosscha
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, Den Bosch, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn W Stommel
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marcel den Dulk
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - Joost J Nuyttens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn P W Intven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Judith de Vos-Geelen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands
| | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands. http://www.twitter.com/MarcBesselink
| | - Casper H J van Eijck
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Liang JN, Anklowitz AJ, Livezey JB, O'Hara TA, Aranda MC, Bandera B. Practice Patterns of Pancreatic Surgery Within the Military. Am Surg 2024:31348241241746. [PMID: 38513255 DOI: 10.1177/00031348241241746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pancreatic surgery is technically challenging, with mortality rates at high-volume centers ranging from 0% to 5%. An inverse relationship between surgeon volume and perioperative mortality has been reported suggesting that patients benefit from experienced surgeons at high-volume centers. There is little published on the volume of pancreatic surgeries performed in military treatment facilities (MTF) and there is no centralization policy regarding pancreatic surgery. This study evaluates pancreatic procedures at MTFs. We hypothesize that a small group of MTFs perform most pancreatic procedures, including more complex pancreatic surgeries. METHODS This is a retrospective review of de-identified data from MHS Mart (M2) from 2014 to 2020. The database contains patient data from all Defense Health Agency treatment facilities. Variables collected include number and types of pancreatic procedures performed and patient demographics. The primary endpoint was the number and type of surgery for each MTF. RESULTS Twenty-six MTFs performed pancreatic surgeries from 2014 to 2020. There was a significant decrease in the number of cases from 2014 to 2020. Nine hospitals performed one surgery over eight years. The most common surgery was a distal pancreatectomy, followed by a pancreaticoduodenectomy. There was a decrease in the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies and distal pancreatectomies performed over this period. CONCLUSIONS Pancreatic surgery is being performed at few MTFs with a downward trajectory over time. Further studies would be needed to assess the impact on patient care regarding postoperative complications, barriers to timely patient care, and impact on readiness of military surgeons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joy N Liang
- General Surgery Residency Program, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Eisenhower, GA, USA
| | - Andrew J Anklowitz
- General Surgery Residency Program, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Eisenhower, GA, USA
| | - Jonathan B Livezey
- General Surgery Residency Program, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Eisenhower, GA, USA
| | - Thomas A O'Hara
- General Surgery Residency Program, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Eisenhower, GA, USA
| | - Marcos C Aranda
- General Surgery Residency Program, Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Eisenhower, GA, USA
| | - Bradley Bandera
- Reno School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bellotti R, Cardini B, Strolz CJ, Stättner S, Oberhuber R, Braunwarth E, Resch T, Scheidl S, Margreiter C, Schneeberger S, Öfner D, Maglione M. Single Center, Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Different Reconstruction Techniques following Pancreatoduodenectomy. J Clin Med 2023; 12:3318. [PMID: 37176758 PMCID: PMC10179219 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 05/04/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatoduodenectomy is still hampered by significant morbidity. So far, there is no universally accepted technique aimed at minimizing postoperative complications. Herein, we compare three different reconstruction techniques. METHODS This is a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database including 283 patients operated between January 2010 and December 2020. Three reconstruction techniques were compared: (1) the Neuhaus-style telescope pancreatojejunostomy, (2) the pancreatogastrostomy, and (3) the modified Blumgart-style, duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy. The primary endpoint consisted in determining the rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (CR-POPF); the secondary endpoints included 90 days morbidity and mortality rates. A propensity score matching analysis was used. RESULTS Rates of CR-POPF did not differ significantly between the groups (Neuhaus-style pancreatojejunostomy 16%, pancreatogastrostomy 17%, modified Blumgart-style pancreatojejunostomy 15%), neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis (p = 0.993 and p = 0.901, respectively). Similarly, no significant differences could be observed with regard to major morbidity (unmatched p = 0.596, matched p = 0.188) and mortality rates (unmatched p = 0.371, matched p = 0.209) within the first 90 days following surgery. Propensity-score matching analyses revealed, however, a higher occurrence of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreatogastrostomy (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION Similar CR-POPF rates suggest no crucial role of the applied reconstruction technique. Increased incidence of intraluminal post-pancreatectomy hemorrhages following pancreatogastrostomy demands awareness for meticulous hemostasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruben Bellotti
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Benno Cardini
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Carola J. Strolz
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Stefan Stättner
- Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Salzkammergut Hospital, 4840 Vöcklabruck, Austria
| | - Rupert Oberhuber
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Eva Braunwarth
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Thomas Resch
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Stefan Scheidl
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Christian Margreiter
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Stefan Schneeberger
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Dietmar Öfner
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| | - Manuel Maglione
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Center of Operative Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; (R.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kokkinakis S, Kritsotakis EI, Maliotis N, Karageorgiou I, Chrysos E, Lasithiotakis K. Complications of modern pancreaticoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2022; 21:527-537. [PMID: 35513962 DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2022.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2021] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the past decades, the perioperative management of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has undergone major changes worldwide. This review aimed to systematically determine the burden of complications of PD performed in the last 10 years. DATA SOURCES A systematic review was conducted in PubMed for randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting postoperative complications in at least 100 PDs from January 2010 to April 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomized studies and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Pooled complication rates were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS A total of 20 randomized and 49 observational studies reporting 63 229 PDs were reviewed. Mean MINORS score showed a high risk of bias in non-randomized studies, while one quarter of the randomized studies were assessed to have high risk of bias. Pooled incidences of 30-day mortality, overall complications and serious complications were 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.9%; I2 = 95.4%), 54.7% (95% CI: 46.4%-62.8%; I2 = 99.4%) and 25.5% (95% CI: 21.8%-29.4%; I2= 92.9%), respectively. Clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula risk was 14.3% (95% CI: 12.4%-16.3%; I2 = 92.0%) and mean length of stay was 14.8 days (95% CI: 13.6-16.1; I2 = 99.3%). Meta-regression partially attributed the observed heterogeneity to the country of origin of the study, the study design and the American Society of Anesthesiologists class. CONCLUSIONS Pooled complication rates estimated in this study may be used to counsel patients scheduled to undergo a PD and to set benchmarks against which centers can audit their practice. However, cautious interpretation is necessary due to substantial heterogeneity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stamatios Kokkinakis
- Department of General Surgery, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece
| | - Evangelos I Kritsotakis
- Laboratory of Biostatistics, Division of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece
| | - Neofytos Maliotis
- Department of General Surgery, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece
| | - Ioannis Karageorgiou
- Department of General Surgery, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece
| | - Emmanuel Chrysos
- Department of General Surgery, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece
| | - Konstantinos Lasithiotakis
- Department of General Surgery, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete 71110, Greece.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Latenstein AEJ, Scholten L, Al-Saffar HA, Björnsson B, Butturini G, Capretti G, Chatzizacharias NA, Dervenis C, Frigerio I, Gallagher TK, Gasteiger S, Halimi A, Labori KJ, Montagnini G, Muñoz-Bellvis L, Nappo G, Nikov A, Pando E, Pastena MD, Peña-Moral JMDL, Radenkovic D, Roberts KJ, Salvia R, Sanchez-Bueno F, Scandavini C, Serradilla-Martin M, Stättner S, Tomazic A, Varga M, Zavrtanik H, Zerbi A, Erkan M, Kleeff J, Lesurtel M, Besselink MG, Ramia-Angel JM. Clinical Outcomes After Total Pancreatectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Pan-European Snapshot Study. Ann Surg 2022; 276:e536-e543. [PMID: 33177356 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004551] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess outcomes among patients undergoing total pancreatectomy (TP) including predictors for complications and in-hospital mortality. BACKGROUND Current studies on TP mostly originate from high-volume centers and span long time periods and therefore may not reflect daily practice. METHODS This prospective pan-European snapshot study included patients who underwent elective (primary or completion) TP in 43 centers in 16 European countries (June 2018-June 2019). Subgroup analysis included cutoff values for annual volume of pancreatoduodenectomies (<60 vs ≥60).Predictors for major complications and in-hospital mortality were assessed in multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS In total, 277 patients underwent TP, mostly for malignant disease (73%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 70 patients (25%). Median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 9-18) and 40 patients were readmitted (15%). In-hospital mortality was 5% and 90-day mortality 8%. In the subgroup analysis, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients operated in centers with ≥60 pancreatoduodenectomies compared <60 (4% vs 10%, P = 0.046). In multivariable analysis, annual volume <60 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.18-12.16, P = 0.026), age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P = 0.046), and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 11.89, 95% CI 2.64-53.61, P = 0.001) were associated with in-hospital mortality. ASA ≥3 (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.56-5.26, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.25-9.90, P = 0.017) were associated with major complications. CONCLUSION This pan-European prospective snapshot study found a 5% inhospital mortality after TP. The identified predictors for mortality, including low-volume centers, age, and increased blood loss, may be used to improve outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anouk E J Latenstein
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lianne Scholten
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hasan Ahmad Al-Saffar
- HPB-Unit, Department of Upper GI diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Bergthor Björnsson
- Department of Surgery in Linköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Giovanni Butturini
- Pancreatic Surgical Unit, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
| | - Giovanni Capretti
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS and Humanitas University Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
| | - Nikolaos A Chatzizacharias
- Department of HPB and Liver Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Chris Dervenis
- Department of General Surgery, Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Isabella Frigerio
- Pancreatic Surgical Unit, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
| | - Tom K Gallagher
- Department of HPB and Transplant Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Silvia Gasteiger
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Asif Halimi
- HPB-Unit, Department of Upper GI diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Knut J Labori
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Greta Montagnini
- General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Luis Muñoz-Bellvis
- Department of Surgery, University of Salamanca/HospitalUniversitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
| | - Gennaro Nappo
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS and Humanitas University Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrej Nikov
- Department of Surgery, Central Military Hospital Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Elizabeth Pando
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant surgery, Hospital Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Matteo de Pastena
- General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Jesús M de la Peña-Moral
- Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínico Universitario ''Virgen de la Arrixaca,'' Murcia, Spain
| | - Dejan Radenkovic
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Clinical center of Serbia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Keith J Roberts
- Department of HPB and Liver Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Roberto Salvia
- General and Pancreatic Surgery Department, Pancreas Institute, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Francisco Sanchez-Bueno
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Cli´nico Universitario ''Virgen de la Arrixaca,''Murcia, Spain
| | - Chiara Scandavini
- HPB-Unit, Department of Upper GI diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Stefan Stättner
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
- Department of Surgery, Salzkammergut Klinikum, Vöcklabruck, Austria
| | - Ales Tomazic
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Martin Varga
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Hana Zavrtanik
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Alessandro Zerbi
- Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS and Humanitas University Department of Biomedical Sciences, Rozzano, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
| | - Mert Erkan
- Department of Surgery, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Jörg Kleeff
- Department of Visceral, Vascular, and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
| | - Mickaël Lesurtel
- Department of Digestive Surgery & Liver Transplantation, Croix Rousse University Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, University of Lyon I, Lyon, France
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jose M Ramia-Angel
- Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ratnayake B, Pendharkar SA, Connor S, Koea J, Sarfati D, Dennett E, Pandanaboyana S, Windsor JA. Patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic cancer resection: A contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2022; 172:273-283. [PMID: 35034796 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.11.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Revised: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic cancer remains a highly fatal disease with a 5-year overall survival of less than 10%. In seeking to improve clinical outcomes, there is ongoing debate about the weight that should be given to patient volume in centralization models. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic resection for cancer in the contemporary literature. METHODS The Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from February 2015 until June 2021 for articles reporting patient volume and outcomes after pancreatic cancer resection. RESULTS There were 46 eligible studies over a 6-year period comprising 526,344 patients. The median defined annual patient volume thresholds varied: low-volume 0 (range 0-9), medium-volume 9 (range 3-29), high-volume 19 (range 9-97), and very-high-volume 28 (range 17-60) patients. The latter 2 were associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (P < .001), 90-day mortality (P < .001), overall postoperative morbidity (P = .005), failure to rescue rate (P = .006), and R0 resection rate (P = .008) compared with very-low/low-volume hospitals. Centralization was associated with lower 30-day mortality in 3 out of 5 studies, while postoperative morbidity was similar in 4 out of 4 studies. Median survival was longer in patients traveling greater distance for pancreatic resection in 2 out of 3 studies. Median and 5-year survival did not differ between urban and rural settings. CONCLUSION The contemporary literature confirms a strong relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome for pancreatic cancer resection despite expected bias toward more complex surgery in high-volume centers. These outcomes include lower mortality, morbidity, failure-to-rescue, and positive resection margin rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bathiya Ratnayake
- Surgical and Translational Research Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; HBP/Upper GI Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. https://twitter.com/ProfJohnWindsor
| | - Sayali A Pendharkar
- Surgical and Translational Research Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Saxon Connor
- Department of Surgery, Christchurch Hospital, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Jonathan Koea
- Upper GI Unit, Northshore Hospital, Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Diana Sarfati
- Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Cancer Control Agency, Te Aho O Te Kahu, Ministry of Health, New Zealand
| | - Elizabeth Dennett
- Cancer Control Agency, Te Aho O Te Kahu, Ministry of Health, New Zealand
| | - Sanjay Pandanaboyana
- Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK; Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
| | - John A Windsor
- Surgical and Translational Research Centre, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; HBP/Upper GI Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bolm L, Zemskov S, Zeller M, Baba T, Roldan J, Harrison JM, Petruch N, Sato H, Petrova E, Lapshyn H, Braun R, Honselmann KC, Hummel R, Dronov O, Kirichenko AV, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Kleihues-van Tol K, Zeissig SR, Rades D, Keck T, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Wellner UF, Wegner RE. Concepts and Outcomes of Perioperative Therapy in Stage IA-III Pancreatic Cancer-A Cross-Validation of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (GCRG/ADT). Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:868. [PMID: 35205616 PMCID: PMC8870242 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2022] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: The aim of this study is to assess perioperative therapy in stage IA-III pancreatic cancer cross-validating the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers-Network for Care, Quality, and Research in Oncology, Berlin (GCRG/ADT) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). (2) Methods: Patients with clinical stage IA-III PDAC undergoing surgery alone (OP), neoadjuvant therapy (TX) + surgery (neo + OP), surgery+adjuvantTX (OP + adj) and neoadjuvantTX + surgery + adjuvantTX (neo + OP + adj) were identified. Baseline characteristics, histopathological parameters, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. (3) Results: 1392 patients from the GCRG/ADT and 29,081 patients from the NCDB were included. Patient selection and strategies of perioperative therapy remained consistent across the registries for stage IA-III pancreatic cancer. Combined neo + OP + adj was associated with prolonged OS as compared to neo + OP alone (17.8 m vs. 21.3 m, p = 0.012) across all stages in the GCRG/ADT registry. Similarly, OS with neo + OP + adj was improved as compared to neo + OP in the NCDB registry (26.4 m vs. 35.4 m, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The cross-validation study demonstrated similar concepts and patient selection criteria of perioperative therapy across clinical stages of PDAC. Neoadjuvant therapy combined with adjuvant therapy is associated with improved overall survival as compared to either therapy alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louisa Bolm
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Sergii Zemskov
- Department of General Surgery, Bogomolets National Medical Unoversity, 01601 Kyiv, Ukraine; (S.Z.); (O.D.)
| | - Maria Zeller
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Taisuke Baba
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
| | - Jorge Roldan
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
| | - Jon M. Harrison
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
| | - Natalie Petruch
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Hiroki Sato
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
| | - Ekaterina Petrova
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Hryhoriy Lapshyn
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Ruediger Braun
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Kim C. Honselmann
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Richard Hummel
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Oleksii Dronov
- Department of General Surgery, Bogomolets National Medical Unoversity, 01601 Kyiv, Ukraine; (S.Z.); (O.D.)
| | - Alexander V. Kirichenko
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, USA; (A.V.K.); (R.E.W.)
| | - Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke
- German Cancer Registry Group, Society of German Tumor Centers—Network for Care, Quality and Research in Oncology, 14057 Berlin, Germany; (M.K.-S.); (K.K.-v.T.)
| | - Kees Kleihues-van Tol
- German Cancer Registry Group, Society of German Tumor Centers—Network for Care, Quality and Research in Oncology, 14057 Berlin, Germany; (M.K.-S.); (K.K.-v.T.)
| | - Sylke R. Zeissig
- Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany;
| | - Dirk Rades
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23538 Luebeck, Germany;
| | - Tobias Keck
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (T.B.); (J.R.); (J.M.H.); (N.P.); (H.S.); (C.F.-d.C.)
| | - Ulrich F. Wellner
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23562 Luebeck, Germany; (M.Z.); (E.P.); (H.L.); (R.B.); (K.C.H.); (R.H.); (T.K.); (U.F.W.)
| | - Rodney E. Wegner
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, USA; (A.V.K.); (R.E.W.)
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Renz BW, Adrion C, Klinger C, Ilmer M, D'Haese JG, Buhr HJ, Mansmann U, Werner J. Pylorus resection versus pylorus preservation in pancreatoduodenectomy (PyloResPres): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a German multicentre, single-blind, surgical, registry-based randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e056191. [PMID: 34845079 PMCID: PMC8733944 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for various benign and malignant tumours of the pancreatic head or the periampullary region. For reconstruction of the gastrointestinal passage, two stomach-preserving PD variants exist: pylorus preservation PD (ppPD) or pylorus resection PD (prPD) with preservation of the stomach. In pancreatic surgery, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a serious complication after PD with an incidence varying between 4.5% and 45%, potentially delaying hospital discharge or further treatment, for example, adjuvant chemotherapy. Evidence is lacking to assess, which variant of PD entails fewer postoperative DGE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The protocol of a large-scale, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, registry-based randomised controlled trial (rRCT) using a two-stage group-sequential design is presented. This patient-blind rRCT aims to demonstrate the superiority of prPD over ppPD with respect to the overall incidence of DGE within 30 days after index surgery in a German real-world setting. A total of 984 adults undergoing elective PD for any indication will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited at about 30 hospitals being members of the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry established by the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. The postoperative follow-up for each patient will be 30 days. The primary analysis will follow an intention-to-treat approach and applies a binary logistic random intercepts model. Secondary perioperative outcomes include overall severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), blood loss, 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative hospital stay and operation time. Complication rates and adverse events will be closely monitored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This protocol was approved by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich (reference number 19-221). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (http://www.dgav.de/studoq/pylorespres/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DRKS-ID: DRKS00018842.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernhard W Renz
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Christine Adrion
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Carsten Klinger
- German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias Ilmer
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Jan G D'Haese
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Heinz-J Buhr
- German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), Berlin, Germany
| | - Ulrich Mansmann
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Kovoor JG, Ma N, Tivey DR, Vandepeer M, Jacobsen JHW, Scarfe A, Vreugdenburg TD, Stretton B, Edwards S, Babidge WJ, Anthony AA, Padbury RTA, Maddern GJ. In-hospital survival after pancreatoduodenectomy is greater in high-volume hospitals versus lower-volume hospitals: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2021; 92:77-85. [PMID: 34676647 DOI: 10.1111/ans.17293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Variation in cut-off values for what is considered a high volume (HV) hospital has made assessments of volume-outcome relationships for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) challenging. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing in-hospital mortality after PD in hospitals above and below HV thresholds of various cut-off values. METHOD PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to 4 January 2021 for studies comparing in-hospital mortality after PD in hospitals above and below defined HV thresholds. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, including meta-regressions. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021224432. RESULTS From 1855 records, 17 observational studies of moderate quality were included. Median HV cut-off was 25 PDs/year (IQR: 20-32). Overall relative risk of in-hospital mortality was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.45), that is, 63% less in HV hospitals. All subgroup analyses found an in-hospital survival benefit in performing PDs at HV hospitals. Meta-regressions from included studies found no statistically significant associations between relative risk of in-hospital mortality and region (USA vs. non-USA; p = 0.396); or 25th percentile (p = 0.231), median (p = 0.822) or 75th percentile (p = 0.469) HV cut-off values. Significant inverse relationships were found between PD hospital volume and other outcomes. CONCLUSION In-hospital survival was significantly greater for patients undergoing PDs at HV hospitals, regardless of HV cut-off value or region. Future research is required to investigate regions where low-volume centres have specialized PD infrastructure and the potential impact on mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua G Kovoor
- Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Centre of Research Excellence in Translating Nutritional Science to Good Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Ning Ma
- Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - David R Tivey
- Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Meegan Vandepeer
- Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jonathan Henry W Jacobsen
- Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Anje Scarfe
- Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Thomas D Vreugdenburg
- Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Brandon Stretton
- Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Suzanne Edwards
- Adelaide Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Wendy J Babidge
- Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Adrian A Anthony
- Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Robert T A Padbury
- Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Division of Surgery and Perioperative Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Guy J Maddern
- Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
van Dongen JC, Wismans LV, Suurmeijer JA, Besselink MG, de Wilde RF, Groot Koerkamp B, van Eijck CHJ. The effect of preoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy on pancreatic fistula and other surgical complications after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:1321-1331. [PMID: 34099372 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.04.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2021] [Revised: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preoperative chemo- or chemoradiotherapy is recommended for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preoperative therapy on surgical complications in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies reporting on the rate of surgical complications after preoperative chemo- or chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in pancreatic cancer patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade B/C POPF. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS Forty-one comparative studies including 25,389 patients were included. Vascular resections were more often performed after preoperative therapy (29.4% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.001). Preoperative therapy was associated with a lower rate of grade B/C POPF as compared to immediate surgery (pooled OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.38-0.58). This reduction was mostly obtained by preoperative chemoradiotherapy (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.29-0.73), but not by preoperative chemotherapy alone (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.59-1.16). No difference was demonstrated for major morbidity, mortality, postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying and overall morbidity. CONCLUSION Preoperative chemo- and chemoradiotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer appears to be safe with respect to POPF and other surgical complications as compared to immediate surgery. The reduced rate of POPF appears to be attributable to preoperative chemoradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jelle C van Dongen
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Leonoor V Wismans
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Annelie Suurmeijer
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roeland F de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Michl P, Löhr M, Neoptolemos JP, Capurso G, Rebours V, Malats N, Ollivier M, Ricciardiello L. UEG position paper on pancreatic cancer. Bringing pancreatic cancer to the 21st century: Prevent, detect, and treat the disease earlier and better. United European Gastroenterol J 2021; 9:860-871. [PMID: 34431604 PMCID: PMC8435257 DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the deadliest cancer worldwide with a 98% loss-of-life expectancy and a 30% increase in the disability-adjusted life years during the last decade in Europe. The disease cannot be effectively prevented nor being early detected. When diagnosed, 80% of patients have tumors that are in incurable stages, while for those who undergo surgery, 80% of patients will present with local or distant metastasis. Importantly, chemotherapies are far from being effective. OBJECTIVE Pancreatic cancer represents a great challenge and, at the same time, a huge opportunity for advancing our understanding on the basis of the disease, the molecular profiles, that would lead to develop tools for early detection and effective treatments, thus, boosting patient survival. RESULTS Research on pancreatic cancer has being receiving little or minimal funds from European funding bodies. UEG is calling for public-private partnerships that would effectively fund research on pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION This would increase our understanding of this disease and better treatment, through pan-European efforts that take advantage of the strong academic European research landscape on pancreatic cancer, and the contribution by the industry of all sizes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Michl
- Department of Internal Medicine IUniversity Medicine Halle (Saale)HalleGermany
| | - Matthias Löhr
- Department of CancerKarolinska University Hospital and Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
| | | | - Gabriele Capurso
- Pancreato‐Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography DivisionPancreas Translational and Clinical Research CenterIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
| | - Vinciane Rebours
- Pancreatology UnitBeaujon HospitalAPHPUniversité de ParisParisFrance
| | - Nuria Malats
- Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology GroupSpanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO)CIBERONCPancreatic Cancer Europe (PCE)MadridSpain
| | | | - Luigi Ricciardiello
- IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di BolognaBolognaItaly
- Department of Medical and Surgical SciencesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Outcome of pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy in two national audits. Surgery 2021; 170:1799-1806. [PMID: 34373107 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.06.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Revised: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence on the optimal pancreatic anastomosis during pancreatoduodenectomy is inconclusive. Large multicenter and nationwide registries may provide additional insights. The study compared the practice and outcome of different pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy, focusing on the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, in two large audits of pancreatic surgery. METHODS Posthoc analysis of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit and the German DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registries (January 2014 to December 2017). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery B/C), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery B/C) and Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications rates were compared for the three most common anastomoses: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy, and non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy. Multivariable adjustment for potential confounders was performed. RESULTS Overall, 6,149 patients were included. The most common anastomosis was duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy (duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 59.8%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 21.1%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 12.4%). The overall postoperative pancreatic fistula rate was 14%: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 12.9%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 14.4% (P = .162), non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 18.3% (P < .001). The rate of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage was the lowest after duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 6.9%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 10% (P < .001), non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 17.9% (P < .001). The rate of Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications was the lowest after duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy: duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 28%, non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy 32.7% (P = .002), non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy 43.1% (P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ significantly between the three anastomoses. The risk of hemorrhage (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.6-3.5, P < .001) and Clavien-Dindo ≥3 (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.1, P = .001) remained significantly higher only for non-duct-to-mucosa pancreatogastrostomy. CONCLUSION Data from two national audits showed no difference in the risk-adjusted postoperative pancreatic fistula rate among the three most used pancreatic anastomoses during pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreatogastrostomy was inferior to pancreatojejunostomy regarding bleeding and overall major complications.
Collapse
|
19
|
Skjold-Ødegaard B, Søreide K. Standardization in surgery: friend or foe? Br J Surg 2021; 107:1094-1096. [PMID: 32749691 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 02/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- B Skjold-Ødegaard
- Department of Surgery, Haugesund Hospital, Haugesund, Norway.,Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - K Søreide
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.,Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jones LR, Zwart MJW, Molenaar IQ, Koerkamp BG, Hogg ME, Hilal MA, Besselink MG. Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy: Patient Selection, Volume Criteria, and Training Programs. Scand J Surg 2021; 109:29-33. [PMID: 32192422 DOI: 10.1177/1457496920911815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There has been a rapid development in minimally invasive pancreas surgery in recent years. The most recent innovation is robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Several studies have suggested benefits as compared to the open or laparoscopic approach. This review provides an overview of studies concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and identified knowledge gaps regarding barriers for safe implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Pubmed search was conducted concerning patient selection, volume criteria, and training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. RESULTS A total of 20 studies were included. No contraindications were found in patient selection for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. The consensus and the Miami guidelines advice is a minimum annual volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per center, per year. One training program was identified which describes superior outcomes after the training program and shortening of the learning curve in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. CONCLUSION Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is safe and feasable for all indications when performed by specifically trained surgeons working in centers who can maintain a minimum volume of 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures per year. Large proficiency-based training program for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy seem essential to facilitate a safe implementation and future research on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L R Jones
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.,Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M J W Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Q Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - B Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - M A Hilal
- Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - M G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Balduzzi A, van der Heijde N, Alseidi A, Dokmak S, Kendrick ML, Polanco PM, Sandford DE, Shrikhande SV, Vollmer CM, Wang SE, Zeh HJ, Hilal MA, Asbun HJ, Besselink MG. Risk factors and outcomes of conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020; 406:597-605. [PMID: 33301071 PMCID: PMC8106568 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-02043-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The reported conversion rates for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) range widely from 2 to 38%. The identification of risk factors for conversion may help surgeons during preoperative planning and patient counseling. Moreover, the impact of conversion on outcomes of MIDP is unknown. Methods A systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR). The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning conversion to open surgery in MIDP. Results Of the 828 studies screened, eight met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a combined dataset including 2592 patients after MIDP. The overall conversion rate was 17.1% (range 13.0–32.7%) with heterogeneity between studies associated with the definition of conversion adopted. Only one study divided conversion into elective and emergency conversion. The main indications for conversion were vascular involvement (23.7%), concern for oncological radicality (21.9%), and bleeding (18.9%). The reported risk factors for conversion included a malignancy as an indication for surgery, the proximity of the tumor to vascular structures in preoperative imaging, higher BMI or visceral fat, and multi-organ resection or extended resection. Contrasting results were seen in terms of blood loss and length of stay in comparing converted MIDP and completed MIDP patients. Conclusion The identified risk factors for conversion from this study can be used for patient selection and counseling. Surgeon experience should be considered when contemplating MIDP for a complex patient. Future studies should divide conversion into elective and emergency conversion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Balduzzi
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Verona, Italy
| | - N van der Heijde
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, UK.,Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Alseidi
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - S Dokmak
- Department of Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Paris, France
| | - M L Kendrick
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - P M Polanco
- Department of Surgery, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - D E Sandford
- Department of Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - S V Shrikhande
- Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - C M Vollmer
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - S E Wang
- Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - H J Zeh
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - M Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, UK.,Department of General Surgery, Istituto Ospedaliero Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - H J Asbun
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreas, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA
| | - M G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Nymo LS, Kleive D, Waardal K, Bringeland EA, Søreide JA, Labori KJ, Mortensen KE, Søreide K, Lassen K. Centralizing a national pancreatoduodenectomy service: striking the right balance. BJS Open 2020; 4:904-913. [PMID: 32893988 PMCID: PMC7528527 DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Revised: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Centralization of pancreatic surgery is currently called for owing to superior outcomes in higher‐volume centres. Conversely, organizational and patient concerns speak for a moderation in centralization. Consensus on the optimal balance has not yet been reached. This observational study presents a volume–outcome analysis of a complete national cohort in a health system with long‐standing centralization. Methods Data for all pancreatoduodenectomies in Norway in 2015 and 2016 were identified through a national quality registry and completed through electronic patient journals. Hospitals were dichotomized (high‐volume (40 or more procedures/year) or medium–low‐volume). Results Some 394 procedures were performed (201 in high‐volume and 193 in medium–low‐volume units). Major postoperative complications occurred in 125 patients (31·7 per cent). A clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 66 patients (16·8 per cent). Some 17 patients (4·3 per cent) died within 90 days, and the failure‐to‐rescue rate was 13·6 per cent (17 of 125 patients). In multivariable comparison with the high‐volume centre, medium–low‐volume units had similar overall complication rates, lower 90‐day mortality (odds ratio 0·24, 95 per cent c.i. 0·07 to 0·82) and no tendency for a higher failure‐to‐rescue rate. Conclusion Centralization beyond medium volume will probably not improve on 90‐day mortality or failure‐to‐rescue rates after pancreatoduodenectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L S Nymo
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital of North, Tromsø, Norway.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - D Kleive
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - K Waardal
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - E A Bringeland
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Olav Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.,Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - J A Søreide
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.,Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - K J Labori
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - K E Mortensen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital of North, Tromsø, Norway.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - K Søreide
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.,Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - K Lassen
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.,Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Mackay TM, Gleeson EM, Wellner UF, Williamsson C, Busch OR, Groot Koerkamp B, Keck T, van Santvoort HC, Tingstedt B, Pitt HA, Besselink MG. Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes. Surgery 2020; 169:396-402. [PMID: 32868111 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 07/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Registries of pancreatic surgery have become increasingly popular as they facilitate both quality improvement and clinical research. We aimed to compare registries for design, variables collected, patient characteristics, treatment strategies, clinical outcomes, and pathology. METHODS Registered variables and outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (2014-2017) in 4 nationwide or multicenter pancreatic surgery registries from the United States of America (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie - Studien-, Dokumentations- und Qualitätszentrum), the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit), and Sweden (Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry) were compared. A core registry set of 55 parameters was identified and evaluated using relative and absolute largest differences between extremes (smallest versus largest). RESULTS Overall, 22,983 pancreatoduodenectomies were included (15,224, 3,558, 2,795, and 1,406 in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Design of the registries varied because 20 out of 55 (36.4%) core parameters were not available in 1 or more registries. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was administered in 27.6%, 4.9%, 7.0%, and 3.4% (relative largest difference 8.1, absolute largest difference 24.2%, P < .001). Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 7.8%, 4.5%, 13.5%, and unknown (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 9.0%, P < .001). Median length of stay was 8.0, 16.0, 12.0, and 11.0 days (relative largest difference 2.0, absolute largest difference 8.0, P < .001). Reoperation was performed in 5.7%, 17.1%, 8.7%, and 11.2% (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 11.4%, P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.3%, 4.7%, 3.6%, and 2.7% (relative largest difference 3.6, absolute largest difference 3.4%, P < .001). CONCLUSION Considerable differences exist in the design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes in 4 Western registries of pancreatic surgery. The absolute largest differences of 24.3% for the use of preoperative chemotherapy, 9.0% for minimally invasive surgery, 11.4% for reoperation rate, and 3.4% for in-hospital mortality require further study and improvement. This analysis provides 55 core parameters for pancreatic surgery registries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tara M Mackay
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elizabeth M Gleeson
- Department of Surgery, Hahnemann University Hospital and Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Ulrich F Wellner
- DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas and Clinic of Surgery, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Caroline Williamsson
- Department of Surgery, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Olivier R Busch
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tobias Keck
- DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas and Clinic of Surgery, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Germany
| | - Hjalmar C van Santvoort
- Department of Surgery, Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht and St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Bobby Tingstedt
- Department of Surgery, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Henry A Pitt
- Temple University Health System, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Matsuo K, Matsuzaki S, Mandelbaum RS, Matsushima K, Klar M, Grubbs BH, Roman LD, Wright JD. Association between hospital surgical volume and perioperative outcomes of fertility-sparing trachelectomy for cervical cancer: A national study in the United States. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157:173-180. [PMID: 31982179 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2019] [Revised: 01/04/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between hospital surgical volume and perioperative outcomes for fertility-sparing trachelectomy performed for cervical cancer. METHODS This is a population-based retrospective observational study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2001 to 2011. Women aged ≤45 years with cervical cancer who underwent trachelectomy were included. Annualized hospital surgical volume was defined as the average number of trachelectomies a hospital performed per year in which at least one case was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed based on hospital surgical volume in a weighted model, specifically comparing the top-decile centers to the lower volume centers. RESULTS There were a total of 815 trachelectomies performed at 89 centers, and 76.4% of the trachelectomy-performing centers had a minimum surgical volume of one trachelectomy per year. The top-decile group had a higher rate of lymphadenectomy performance compared to the lower volume group (96.4% versus 82.4%, odds ratio [OR] 5.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.81-11.4, P < 0.001). There was a significant inverse linear association between annualized surgical volume and the number of perioperative complications (P = 0.020). The top-decile group also had a lower rate of perioperative complications (9.7% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay ≥7 days (2.0% versus 6.5%, P = 0.006) compared to the lower volume group. In a multivariable analysis, the top-decile group had a 65% relative decrease in perioperative complication risk compared to the lower volume group (adjusted-OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.20-0.59, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Fertility-sparing trachelectomy for young women with cervical cancer is a rare surgical procedure; <90 centers performed this procedure from 2001 to 2011 and most hospitals perform a small number of cases annually. Higher hospital surgical volume for trachelectomy may be associated with reduced perioperative morbidity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koji Matsuo
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Shinya Matsuzaki
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Rachel S Mandelbaum
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Kazuhide Matsushima
- Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Maximilian Klar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Brendan H Grubbs
- Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Lynda D Roman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jason D Wright
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Strijker M, Belkouz A, van der Geest LG, van Gulik TM, van Hooft JE, de Meijer VE, Haj Mohammad N, de Reuver PR, Verheij J, de Vos-Geelen J, Wilmink JW, Groot Koerkamp B, Klümpen HJ, Besselink MG. Treatment and survival of resected and unresected distal cholangiocarcinoma: a nationwide study. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1048-1055. [PMID: 30907207 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1590634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Background: Population-based data on distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) from the Western world are not available, albeit essential to identify areas for improvement. This study investigated the incidence, treatment and outcomes, including time trends and predictors for survival, in a nationwide cohort of DCC. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with DCC (2009-2016) derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Overall survival (OS) and its predictors were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Time trends (2009-2012 versus 2013-2016) were assessed. Results: Overall, 1338 patients with DCC were included, with 1-, 3- and 5-year OS of 46%, 18%, and 11%. Incidence of DCC was 0.55-0.90 per 100.000 per year. Median OS was 10.4 months across all stages; 21.9 months for resected (n = 620, 46.3%), 6.7 months for unresected nonmetastatic (n = 445, 33.3%), and 3.6 months for metastatic DCC (n = 273, 20.4%) (p < .001). After resection, 30-day mortality was 4.8% and 90-day mortality 7.7%. Patients with metastatic DCC who received chemotherapy (n = 78, 28.6%) had a median OS of 8.2 versus 2.8 months for those not treated (p < .001). Over time, resection rates (53.6% to 61.7%, p = .008) and use of palliative chemotherapy in metastatic DCC (22.3% to 32.9%, p = .05) increased, without improvement in OS (10.3 vs 10.6 months, p = .55). Independent poor prognostic factors for OS in resected disease were increasing age, pT3/T4 stage, higher lymph node ratio, poor differentiation, and R1 resection. Conclusions: In a nationwide cohort of DCC, resection rates and the use of chemotherapy increased whereas OS remained stable at 10.4 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marin Strijker
- a Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Ali Belkouz
- b Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Lydia G van der Geest
- c Department of Research , Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL) , Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Thomas M van Gulik
- a Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Jeanin E van Hooft
- d Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Vincent E de Meijer
- e Department of Surgery , University of Groningen, University Medical Center , Groningen , the Netherlands
| | - Nadia Haj Mohammad
- f Department of Medical Oncology , University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University , Utrecht , the Netherlands
| | - Philip R de Reuver
- g Department of Surgery , Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Joanne Verheij
- h Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Judith de Vos-Geelen
- i Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology , Maastricht University Medical Center , Maastricht , the Netherlands
| | - Johanna W Wilmink
- b Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Bas Groot Koerkamp
- j Department of Surgery , Erasmus Medical Center , Rotterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Heinz-Josef Klümpen
- b Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- a Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|