Quality Improvement of Pancreatic Surgery by Centralization in the Western Part of the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume hospitals is under debate in many countries. In the western part of the Netherlands, the professional network of surgical oncologists agreed to centralize all pancreatic surgery from 2006 in two high-volume hospitals. Our aim is to evaluate whether centralization of pancreatic surgery has improved clinical outcomes and has changed referral patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre West (CCCW) of all 249 patients who had a resection for suspected pancreatic cancer between 1996 and 2008 in the western part of the Netherlands were analyzed. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate survival for 3 time periods; 1996–2000, 2001–2005 (introduction of quality standards), and 2006–2008 (after centralization). In addition, the differences in referral pattern were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2006, all pancreatic surgery was centralized in 2 hospitals. The 2-year survival rate increased after centralization from 39% to 55% (P = .09) for all patients who had a pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. After adjustment for age, tumor location, stage, histology, and adjuvant treatment, the latter period was significantly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.34–0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery was successful and has resulted in improved clinical outcomes in the western part of the Netherlands, demonstrating the effectiveness of centralization

Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer death in the United States and Europe with over 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone. The overall 5-year survival ranges from 2-7 % and has hardly improve

Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Retrospective Analysis

Background: Large multicenter series on outcomes and predictors of survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are scarce. Methods: Adults who underwent DP for PDAC in 17 Dutch pancreatic centers between January 2005 and September 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was survival, and predictors of survival were identified using Cox regression analysis. Results: In total, 761 consecutive patients after DP were assessed, of whom 620 patients were excluded because of non-PDAC histopathology (n = 616) or a lack of data (n = 4), leaving a total of 141 patients included in the stud

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

Limited resection of pancreatic cancer in high-risk patients can result in a second primary

Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Ideal outcome after pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors:a nationwide study

Background: Pancreatic resections for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) may experience a higher complication rate than for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to determine the rate of the novel composite “Ideal Outcome” measure after resection for pNET, using PDAC as reference. Methods: This observational cohort study included all consecutive patients after pancreatic resection for pNET and PDAC using the nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014–2021). The primary outcome was Ideal Outcome; absence of postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) grade B/C, other major complications, prolonged length of stay, reoperations and readmissions. Results: In total, 524 pNET and 2851 PDAC resections were included. The rate of Ideal Outcome was lower after resection for pNET (47.7% versus 55.7%; P&lt;0.001) as compared to PDAC. This difference was driven by a lower rate of Ideal Outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for pNET (37.7% versus 56.3%; P&lt;0.001), with no difference after left pancreatectomy (54.5% versus 52.5%; P=0.598). Among the individual components of Ideal Outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy, the largest difference was a four times higher rate of POPF (32.1% versus 7.9%; P&lt;0.001) after resection of pNET. Conclusion: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pNET have a reduced Ideal Outcome rate compared to patients with PDAC, related to a fourfold increased risk of POPF. This highlights the value of pNET-specific patient counseling and the need for effective POPF mitigation strategies.</p

Treatment and Survival of Elderly Patients with Stage I–II Pancreatic Cancer: A Report of the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium

Background: Elderly patients with pancreatic cancer are underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in a lack of evidence. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare treatment and overall survival (OS) of patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I–II pancreatic cancer in the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium. Methods: This was an observational cohort study of the Belgian (BE), Dutch (NL), and Norwegian (NOR) cancer registries. The primary outcome was OS, while secondary outcomes were resection, 90-day mortality after resection, and (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy. Results: In total, 3624 patients were included. Resection (BE: 50.2%; NL: 36.2%; NOR: 41.3%; p < 0.001), use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (BE: 55.9%; NL: 41.9%; NOR: 13.8%; p < 0.001), palliative chemotherapy (BE: 39.5%; NL: 6.0%; NOR: 15.7%; p < 0.001), and 90-day mortality differed (BE: 11.7%; NL: 8.0%; NOR: 5.2%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, median OS in patients with (BE: 17.4; NL: 15.9; NOR: 25.4 months; p < 0.001) and without resection (BE: 7.0; NL: 3.9; NOR: 6.5 months; p < 0.001) also differed. Conclusions: Differences were observed in treatment and OS in patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I–II pancreatic cancer, between the population-based cancer registries. Future studies should focus on selection criteria for (non)surgical treatment in older patients so that clinicians can tailor treatment

Therapeutic anticoagulation for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis:A national survey and case-vignette study

BACKGROUND: Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is a major complication of moderate and severe acute pancreatitis. There is no consensus on whether therapeutic anticoagulation should be started in patients with acute pancreatitis and SVT. AIM: To gain insight into current opinions and clinical decision making of pancreatologists regarding SVT in acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A total of 139 pancreatologists of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group were approached to complete an online survey and case vignette survey. The threshold to assume group agreement was set at 75%. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (n = 93). Seventy-one pancreatologists (77%) regularly prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation in case of SVT, and 12 pancreatologists (13%) for narrowing of splanchnic vein lumen. The most common reason to treat SVT was to avoid complications (87%). Acute thrombosis was the most important factor to prescribe therapeutic anticoagulation (90%). Portal vein thrombosis was chosen as the most preferred location to initiate therapeutic anticoagulation (76%) and splenic vein thrombosis as the least preferred location (86%). The preferred initial agent was low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; 87%). In the case vignettes, therapeutic anticoagulation was prescribed for acute portal vein thrombosis, with or without suspected infected necrosis (82% and 90%), and thrombus progression (88%). Agreement was lacking regarding the selection and duration of long-term anticoagulation, the indication for thrombophilia testing and upper endoscopy, and about whether risk of bleeding is a major barrier for therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: In this national survey, the pancreatologists seemed to agree on the use of therapeutic anticoagulation, using LMWH in the acute phase, for acute portal thrombosis and in the case of thrombus progression, irrespective of the presence of infected necrosis.</p

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking

Background: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. Methods: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020–2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). Results: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 −3.2%) and 3.3% (0–16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0–7.0%) and 0.6% (0–4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0–33.3%), 14.2% (0–100%), 7.5% (1.6%–28.5%) and 3.1% (0–14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0–20.5%), 28.1% (0–47.1%), 36% (15.8%–58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%–46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%–94.4%), 54.1% (35.3–100), 46.8% (25.3%–59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%–84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. Conclusion: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking

Background: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. Methods: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020–2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). Results: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 −3.2%) and 3.3% (0–16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0–7.0%) and 0.6% (0–4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0–33.3%), 14.2% (0–100%), 7.5% (1.6%–28.5%) and 3.1% (0–14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0–20.5%), 28.1% (0–47.1%), 36% (15.8%–58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%–46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%–94.4%), 54.1% (35.3–100), 46.8% (25.3%–59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%–84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. Conclusion: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking