Targeting dendritic cells in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Dendritic cells (DC) are an integral part of the tumor microenvironment. Pancreatic cancer is characterized by reduced number and function of DCs, which impacts antigen presentation and contributes to immune tolerance. Recent data suggest that exosomes can mediate communication between pancreatic cancer cells and DCs. Furthermore, levels of DCs may serve as prognostic factors. There is also growing evidence for the effectiveness of vaccination with DCs pulsed with tumor antigens to initiate adaptive cytolytic immune responses via T cells. Most experience with DC-based vaccination has been gathered for MUC1 and WT1 antigens, where clinical studies in advanced pancreatic cancer have provided encouraging results. In this review, we highlight the role of DC in the course, prognosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer

A Wireless Future: performance art, interaction and the brain-computer interfaces

Although the use of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) in the arts originates in the 1960s, there is a limited number of known applications in the context of real-time audio-visual and mixed-media performances and accordingly the knowledge base of this area has not been developed sufficiently. Among the reasons are the difficulties and the unknown parameters involved in the design and implementation of the BCIs. However today, with the dissemination of the new wireless devices, the field is rapidly growing and changing. In this frame, we examine a selection of representative works and artists, in comparison to the current scientific evidence. We identify important performative and neuroscientific aspects, issues and challenges. A model of possible interactions between the performers and the audience is discussed and future trends regarding liveness and interconnectivity are suggested

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

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

International differences in the selection and outcome of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy:A transatlantic analysis

Background: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. Methods: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014–2020 were included. Results: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159–2.300, P = .005). Conclusions: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.</p

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma:A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BackgroundPancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP +/- PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.ResultsOverall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.ConclusionsPVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality

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 >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<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

Surveillance after surgery for pancreatic cancer : a global scoping review of guidelines and a nordic Survey of contemporary practice

Objectives: Most patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone surgical resection eventually develop disease recurrence. ‍This study aimed to investigate whether there is evidence to support routine surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery, with a secondary aim of analyzing the implementation of surveillance strategies in the Nordic countries. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify clinical practice guidelines globally and research studies relating to surveillance after pancreatic cancer resection. This was followed by a survey among 20 pancreatic units from four Nordic countries to assess their current practice of follow-up for operated patients. Results: Altogether 16 clinical practice guidelines and 17 research studies were included. The guidelines provided inconsistent recommendations regarding postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer. The clinical research data were mainly based on retrospective cohort studies with low level of evidence and lead-time bias was not addressed. Active surveillance was recommended in Sweden and Denmark, but not in Norway beyond the post-operative/adjuvant period. Finland had no national recommendations for surveillance. The Nordic survey revealed a wide variation in reported practice among the different units. About 75% (15 of 20 units) performed routine postoperative surveillance. Routine CA 19-9 testing was used by 80% and routine CT by 67% as part of surveillance. About 73% of centers continued follow-up until 5 years postoperatively. Conclusion: Evidence for routine long-term (i.e. 5 years) surveillance after pancreatic cancer surgery remains limited. Most pancreatic units in the Nordic countries conduct regular follow-up, but protocols vary.Peer reviewe

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p