Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes

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

Ideal Outcome After Pancreatoduodenectomy:A Transatlantic Evaluation of a Harmonized Composite Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to define and assess Ideal Outcome in the national or multicenter registries of North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. BACKGROUND: Assessing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy among centers and countries requires a broad evaluation that cannot be captured by a single parameter. Previously, 2 composite outcome measures (textbook outcome and optimal pancreatic surgery) for pancreatoduodenectomy have been described from Europe and the United States. These composites were harmonized into ideal outcome (IO). METHODS: This analysis is a transatlantic retrospective study (2018-2020) of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy within the registries from North America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden. After 3 consensus meetings, IO for pancreatoduodenectomy was defined as the absence of all 6 parameters: (1) in-hospital mortality, (2) severe complications-Clavien-Dindo ≥3, (3) postoperative pancreatic fistula-International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B/C, (4) reoperation, (5) hospital stay &gt;75th percentile, and (6) readmission. Outcomes were evaluated using relative largest difference (RLD) and absolute largest difference (ALD), and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 21,036 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included, of whom 11,194 (54%) reached IO. The rate of IO varied between 55% in North America, 53% in Germany, 52% in The Netherlands, and 54% in Sweden (RLD: 1.1, ALD: 3%, P &lt;0.001). Individual components varied with an ALD of 2% length of stay, 4% for in-hospital mortality, 12% severe complications, 10% postoperative pancreatic fistula, 11% reoperation, and 9% readmission. Age, sex, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, biliary drainage, absence of vascular resection, and histologic diagnosis were associated with IO. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, country, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy also was associated with improved IO. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed composite outcome measure "Ideal Outcome" can be used for auditing and comparing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy. The observed differences can be used to guide collaborative initiatives to further improve the outcomes of pancreatic surgery.</p

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2):study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.</p

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe:a registry-based retrospective study A critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P &lt;0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P &lt;0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.</p

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

IMPORTANCE Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.EXPOSURES The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The learning curvewas assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.RESULTS From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes After Preoperative FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreatic Cancer : An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Background. Preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is increasingly administered to patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) to improve overall survival (OS). Multicenter studies reporting on the impact from the number of preoperative cycles and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in relation to outcomes in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the outcome of pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX, including predictors of OS.Methods. This international multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients from 31 centers in 19 European countries and the United States undergoing pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (2012-2016). The primary end point was OS from diagnosis. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression.Results. The study included 423 patients who underwent pancreatectomy after a median of six (IQR 5-8) preoperative cycles of FOLFIRINOX. Postoperative major morbidity occurred for 88 (20.8%) patients and 90-day mortality for 12 (2.8%) patients. An R0 resection was achieved for 243 (57.4%) patients, and 259 (61.2%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The median OS was 38 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-42 months) for BRPC and 33 months (95% CI 27-45 months) for LAPC. Overall survival was significantly associated with R0 resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63; 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and tumor differentiation (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.91). Neither the number of preoperative chemotherapy cycles nor the use adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with OS.Conclusions. This international multicenter study found that pancreatectomy after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is associated with favorable outcomes for patients with BRPC and those with LAPC. Future studies should confirm that the number of neoadjuvant cycles and the use adjuvant chemotherapy have no relation to OS after resection.Peer reviewe

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p