Should all pancreatic surgery be centralized regardless of patients' comorbidity?

Risk factors of developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) occurs in 10% to 40% of patients after pancreatic resection. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) is thought to be closely associated with NAFLD; however, the mechanism of NAFLD is not clearly understood. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the risk factors of NAFLD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE database. Studies focused on the risk factors associated with NAFLD in patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The odds ratios (ORs) denoting the association of risk factors with NAFLD after resection were curated.

RESULTS

Of 814 published articles, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Combined, these studies included clinical data on 4055 patients. The pooled incidence of NAFLD was 29% (23%-35%). Among the various risk factors analyzed, the following had a significant likelihood of NAFLD on forest plot analysis: female gender (OR, 2.44), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (OR, 2.11), portal vein or superior mesenteric vein resection (OR, 1.99), dissection of nerve plexus around the superior mesenteric artery (OR, 1.93), and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 1.58). Only 2 studies investigated 2 different measurements of quantitative PEI, which could not be used for analysis. Owing to heterogeneity of studies, pancreatic remanent volume, which is considered a marker for PEI could not be evaluated. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) was not associated with NAFLD.

CONCLUSION

Numerous factors are associated with NAFLD after pancreatectomy. Previous research shows that PEI may be associated with NAFLD; however, this could not be compared in our meta-analysis. Further research is required to study the role of PERT in NAFLD.

Centralization of Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Spline Regression Analysis to Recommend Minimum Volume for a Specialist Pancreas Service

OBJECTIVE

Through a systematic review and spline curve analysis, to better define the minimum volume threshold for hospitals to perform (pancreaticoduodenectomy) and the high-volume center.

BACKGROUND

The pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a resource-intensive procedure, with high morbidity and long hospital stays resulting in centralization towards high-volume hospitals; the published definition of high volume remains variable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following a systematic review of studies comparing PD outcomes across volume groups, semiparametric regression modeling of morbidity (%), mortality (%), length of stay (days), lymph node harvest (number of nodes), and cost ($USD) as continuous variables were performed and fitted as a smoothed function of splines. If this showed a nonlinear association, then a "zero-crossing" technique was used, which produced "first and second derivatives" to identify volume thresholds.

RESULTS

Our analysis of 33 cohort studies (198,377 patients) showed 55 PDs/year and 43 PDs/year were the threshold value required to achieve the lowest morbidity and highest lymph node harvest, with model estimated df 5.154 ( P <0.001) and 8.254 ( P <0.001), respectively. The threshold value for mortality was ~45 PDs/year (model 9.219 ( P <0.001)), with the lowest mortality value (the optimum value) at ~70 PDs/year (ie, a high-volume center). No significant association was observed for cost ( edf =2, P =0.989) and length of stay ( edf =2.04, P =0.099).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant benefit from the centralization of PD, with 55 PDs/year and 43 PDs/year as the threshold value required to achieve the lowest morbidity and highest lymph node harvest, respectively. To achieve mortality benefit, the minimum procedure threshold is 45 PDs/year, with the lowest and optimum mortality value (ie, a high-volume center) at approximately 70 PDs/year.

Study of Risk Factors for Readmission After Pancreatectomy for Cancer: Analysis of Nationwide Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors associated with readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer and to assess their impact on the 1-year mortality in a French multicentric population.

BACKGROUND

Pancreatectomy is a complex procedure with high morbidity that increases the length of hospital stay and jeopardizes survival. Hospital readmissions lead to increased health system costs, making this a topic of great interest.

METHODS

Data collected from patients who underwent pancreatectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2019 were extracted from a French national medico-administrative database. A descriptive analysis was conducted to evaluate the association of baseline variables, including age, sex, liver-related comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor localization, and use of neoadjuvant therapy, along with hospital type and volume, with readmission status. Centers were divided into low and high volumes according to the cutoff of 26 cases/year. Logistic regression models were developed to determine whether the identified bivariate associations persisted after adjusting for the patient characteristics. The mortality rates during readmission and at 1 year postoperatively were also determined.

RESULTS

Of 22,935 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, 9129 (39.3%) were readmitted within 6 months. Readmission rates by year did not vary over the study period, and mean readmissions occurred within 20 days after discharge. Multivariate analysis showed that male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12], age >70 years (OR = 1.16), comorbidities (OR = 1.21), distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.11), and major postoperative complications (OR = 1.37) were predictors of readmission. Interestingly, readmission and surgery in low-volume centers increased the risk of death at 1 year by a factor of 2.15 [(2.01-2.31), P < 0.001] and 1.31 [(1.17-1.47), P < 0.001], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer is high with an increased rate of 1-year mortality.

The Need for Centralization for Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumor Surgery: A Cohort Study from the GTE-Endocan-RENATEN Network, the CentralChirSINET Study

BACKGROUND

The concept of surgical centralization is becoming more and more accepted for specific surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedure volume and the outcomes of surgical small intestine (SI) neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective national study that included patients who underwent SI-NET resection between 2019 and 2021. A high-volume center (hvC) was defined as a center that performed more than five SI-NET resections per year. The quality of the surgical resections was evaluated between hvCs and low-volume centers (lvCs) by comparing the number of resected lymph nodes (LNs) as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients underwent surgery in 33 centers: 90 patients in four hvCs and 67 patients in 29 lvCs. Laparotomy was more often performed in hvCs (85.6% vs. 59.7%; p < 0.001), as was right hemicolectomy (64.4% vs. 38.8%; p < 0.001), whereas limited ileocolic resection was performed in 18% of patients in lvCs versus none in hvCs. A bi-digital palpation of the entire SI length (95.6% vs. 34.3%, p < 0.001), a cholecystectomy (93.3% vs. 14.9%; p < 0.001), and a mesenteric mass resection (70% vs. 35.8%; p < 0.001) were more often performed in hvCs. The proportion of patients with ≥8 LNs resected was significantly higher (96.3% vs. 65.1%; p < 0.001) in hvCs compared with lvCs, as was the proportion of patients with ≥12 LNs resected (87.8% vs. 52.4%). Furthermore, the number of patients with multiple SI-NETs was higher in the hvC group compared with the lvC group (43.3% vs. 25.4%), as were the number of tumors in those patients (median of 7 vs. 2; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal SI-NET resection was significantly more often performed in hvCs. Centralization of surgical care of SI-NETs is recommended.

Survival variability across hospitals after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A multilevel survival analysis on a high-resolution population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Resection is the cornerstone of curative management for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Hospital surgical volume influence post-operative mortality. Few is known about impact on survival.

METHODS

Population included 763 patients resected for PDAC within the 4 French digestive tumor registries between 2000 and 2014. Spline method was used to determine annual surgical volume thresholds influencing survival. A multilevel survival regression model was used to study center effect.

RESULTS

Population was divided into three groups: low-volume (LVC) (<41 hepatobiliary/pancreatic procedures/year), medium-volume (MVC) (41-233) and high-volume centers (HVC) (>233). Patients in LVC were older (p = 0.02), had a lower rate of disease-free margins (76.7% vs. 77.2% and 69.5%, p = 0.028) and a higher post-operative mortality than in MVC and HVC (12.5% and 7.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.004). Median survival was higher in HVC than in other centers (25 vs. 15.2 months, p < 0.0001). Survival variance attributable to center effect accounted for 3.7% of total variance. In multilevel survival analysis, surgical volume explained the inter-hospital survival heterogeneity (non-significant variance after adding the volume to the model p = 0.3). Patients resected in HVC had a better survival than in LVC (HR 0.64 [0.50-0.82], p < 0.0001). There was no difference between MVC and HVC.

CONCLUSION

Regarding center effect, individual characteristics had little impact on survival variability across hospitals. Hospital volume was a major contributor to the center effect. Given the difficulty of centralizing pancreatic surgery, it would be wise to determine which factors would indicate management in a HVC.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study

OBJECTIVE

Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain.

METHODS

This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

Resected Early-Onset Pancreatic Cancer: Practices and Outcomes in an International Dual-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Early-onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC), defined as age ≤ 45 years at diagnosis, accounts for 3% of all pancreatic cancer cases. Although differences in tumor biology have been suggested, available data are sparse and specific treatment recommendations are lacking. This study explores the clinicopathological features and oncologic outcomes of resected EOPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with EOPC undergoing resection between 2002 and 2018 were identified from the Heidelberg University Hospital and Johns Hopkins University registries. Median overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed, and prognostic factors were identified.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 164 patients, most of whom had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC, n = 136; 82.9%) or IPMN-associated pancreatic cancer (n = 17; 10.4%). Twenty (12.1%) patients presented with stage 1 disease, 42 (25.6%) with stage 2, 75 (45.7%) with stage 3, and 22 (13.4%) with oligometastatic stage 4 disease. Most patients underwent upfront resection (n = 113, 68.9%), whereas 51 (31.1%) individuals received preoperative treatment. Median OS and RFS were 26.0 and 12.4 months, respectively. Stage-specific median survival was 70.6, 41.8, 23.8, and 16.9 months for stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 tumors, respectively. Factors independently associated with shorter OS and RFS were R1 resections and AJCC stages 3 and 4. Notably, AJCC 3-N2 and AJCC 3-T4 tumors had a median OS of 20 months versus 29.5 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite frequently presenting with advanced disease, oncologic outcomes in EOPC patients are satisfactory even in locally advanced cancers, justifying aggressive surgical approaches. Further research is needed to tailor current guidelines to this rare population.

Management of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy

A postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the main complication after cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CPD). Unlike its prevention, the curative management of POPFs has long been poorly codified. This review seeks best practices for managing POPFs after CPD. The diagnosis of a POPF is based on two signs: (i) an amylase level in drained fluid more than 3 times the upper limit of the blood amylase level; and (ii) an abnormal clinical course. In the standardised definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery, a purely biochemical fistula is no longer counted as a POPF and is treated by gradual withdrawal of the drain over at most 3 weeks. POPF risk can be scored using pre- and intraoperative clinical criteria, many of which are related to the quality of the pancreatic parenchyma and are common to several scoring systems. The prognostic value of these scores can be improved as early as Day 1 by amylase assays in blood and drained fluid. Recent literature, including in particular the Dutch randomised trial PORSCH, argues for early systematic detection of a POPF (periodic assays, CT-scan with injection indicated on standardised clinical and biological criteria plus an opinion from a pancreatic surgeon), for rapid minimally invasive treatment of collections (percutaneous drainage, antibiotic therapy indicated on standardised criteria) to forestall severe septic and/or haemorrhagic forms, and for the swift withdrawal of abdominal drains when the risk of a POPF is theoretically low and evolution is favourable. A haemorrhage occurring after Day 1 always requires CT angiography with arterial time and monitoring in intensive care. Minimally invasive treatment of a POPF (radiologically-guided percutaneous drainage or, more rarely, endoscopic drainage, arterial embolisation) should be preferred as first-line treatment. The addition of artificial nutrition (enteral via a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube, or parenteral) is most often useful. If minimally invasive treatment fails, then reintervention is indicated, preserving the remaining pancreas if possible, but the expected mortality is higher.

Multimodal Management of Grade 1 and 2 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) are rare tumors with a recent growing incidence. In the 2017 WHO classification, p-NETs are classified into well-differentiated (i.e., p-NETs grade 1 to 3) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (i.e., p-NECs). P-NETs G1 and G2 are often non-functioning tumors, of which the prognosis depends on the metastatic status. In the localized setting, p-NETs should be surgically managed, as no benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated. Parenchymal sparing resection, including both duodenum and pancreas, are safe procedures in selected patients with reduced endocrine and exocrine long-term dysfunction. When the p-NET is benign or borderline malignant, this surgical option is associated with low rates of severe postoperative morbidity and in-hospital mortality. This narrative review offers comments, tips, and tricks from reviewing the available literature on these different options in order to clarify their indications. We also sum up the overall current data on p-NETs G1 and G2 management.

Root-Cause Analysis of Mortality Following Pancreatic Resection (CARE Study): A Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Analyze a multicenter cohort of deceased patients after pancreatectomy in high-volume centers in France by performing a root-cause analysis (RCA) to define the avoidable mortality rate.

BACKGROUND

Despite undeniable progress in pancreatic surgery for over a century, postoperative outcome remain particularly worse and could be further improved.

METHODS

All patients undergoing pancreatectomy between January 2015 and December 2018 and died post-operatively within 90 days after were included. RCA was performed in two stages: the first being the exhaustive collection of data concerning each patient from preoperative to death and the second being blind analysis of files by an independent expert committee. A typical root cause of death was defined with the identification of avoidable death.

RESULTS

Among the 3195 patients operated on in nine participating centers, 140 (4.4%) died within 90 days after surgery. After the exclusion of 39 patients, 101 patients were analyzed. The cause of death was identified in 90% of cases. After RCA, mortality was preventable in 30% of cases, mostly consequently to a preoperative assessment (disease evaluation) or a deficient postoperative management (notably pancreatic fistula and hemorrhage). An inappropriate intraoperative decision was incriminated in 10% of cases. The comparative analysis showed that young age and arterial resection, especially unplanned, were often associated with avoidable mortality.

CONCLUSION

One third of postoperative mortality after pancreatectomy seems to be avoidable, even if the surgery is performed in high volume centers. These data suggest that improving postoperative pancreatectomy outcome requires a multidisciplinary, rigorous and personalized management.

Australian experience with total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation to treat chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TP-IAT) in Australia.

METHODS

Individuals selected for TP-IAT surgery according to the Minnesota Criteria (Appendix) without evidence of diabetes were evaluated including time to transplantation from pancreatectomy, islet numbers infused and post-transplantation HbA1c, C-peptide, total daily insulin and analgesic requirement.

RESULTS

Sixteen individuals underwent TP-IAT from Australia and New Zealand between 2010 and 2020. Two recipients are deceased. The median islet equivalents/kg infused was 4244 (interquartile range (IQR) 2290-7300). The median C-peptide 1 month post-TP-IAT was 384 (IQR 210-579) pmol/L and at median 29.5 (IQR 14.5-46.5) months from transplant was 395 (IQR 139-862) pmol/L. Insulin independence was achieved in eight of 15 (53.3%) surviving recipients. A higher islet equivalents transplanted was most strongly associated with the likelihood of insulin independence (P < 0.05). Of the 15 surviving recipients, 14 demonstrated substantial reduction in analgesic requirement.

CONCLUSION

The TP-IAT programme in Australia has been a successful new therapy for the management of individuals with chronic pancreatitis including hereditary forms refractory to medical treatment to improve pain management with 50% insulin independence rates.

Hepatic function assessment to predict post-hepatectomy liver failure: what can we trust? A systematic review

Post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) could occur even though an adequate liver volume is preserved. Liver function is not strictly related to the volume and the necessity to pre-operatively predict the future liver remnant (FLR) function is emerging, together with the wide spreading of techniques, aiming to optimize the FLR. The aim of this study was to systematically review all the available tests, to pre-operatively assess the liver function and to estimate the risk of PHLF. A systematic literature research of Medline, Embase, Scopus was performed in accordance to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, to identify all the studies available for pre-operative liver function tests to assess the risk of PHLF and/or complications. From the 1122 references retrieved, 79 were included in the review. Dynamic functional tests, such as indocyanine green test (ICG), could evaluate only global liver function, with no definition of functional capacity of the remnant. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with liver-specific contrast agents enables both liver function and volume evaluation; the absence of ionizing radiation showed a better patient's compliance. Nuclear imaging studies as hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) present the unique ability to allow a precise evaluation of the segmental liver function of the remnant liver. Liver volume could overestimate liver function. Several liver function tests are available to evaluate the risk of PHLF in the pre-operative setting. However, no single test alone could accurately predict PHLF. Pre-operative combination between a dynamic quantitative test, such as ICG, with MRI or HBS, should enable a more complete functional evaluation. Functional tests to predict PHLF should be chosen according to patient's characteristics, disease, and center experience.