Advances in adjuvant therapy of biliary tract cancer: an overview of current clinical evidence based on phase II and III trials

Patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) have a high recurrence rate after complete surgical resection. To reduce the risk of recurrence and to improve survival, several chemotherapeutic agents that have shown to be active in locally advanced and metastatic BTC have been investigated in the adjuvant setting in prospective clinical trials. Based on the results of the BILCAP phase III trial, capecitabine was adapted as the standard of care by the ASCO clinical practice guideline. Ongoing randomized controlled trials mainly compare capecitabine with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. This review provides an update of adjuvant therapy in BTC based on published data of phase II and III trials and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Preoperative endoscopic versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (DRAINAGE trial): Design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial

Background: Liver surgery in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is associated with high postoperative morbidity because the tumor typically causes biliary obstruction. Preoperative biliary drainage is used to create a safer environment prior to liver surgery, but biliary drainage may be harmful when severe drainage-related complications deteriorate the patients' condition or increase the risk of postoperative morbidity. Biliary drainage can cause cholangitis/cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration. Two methods of preoperative biliary drainage are mostly applied: endoscopic biliary drainage, which is currently used in most regional centers before referring patients for surgical treatment, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Both methods are associated with severe drainage-related complications, but two small retrospective series found a lower incidence in the number of preoperative complications after percutaneous drainage compared to endoscopic drainage (18-25% versus 38-60%, respectively). The present study randomizes patients with potentially resectable PHC and biliary obstruction between preoperative endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Methods/Design: The study is a multi-center trial with an "all-comers" design, randomizing patients between endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All patients selected to potentially undergo a major liver resection for presumed PHC are eligible for inclusion in the study provided that the biliary system in the future liver remnant is obstructed (even if they underwent previous inadequate endoscopic drainage). Primary outcome measure is the total number of severe preoperative complications between randomization and exploratory laparotomy. The study is designed to detect superiority of percutaneous drainage: a provisional sample size of 106 patients is required to detect a relative decrease of 50% in the number of severe preoperative complications (alpha = 0.95; beta = 0.8). Interim analysis after inclusion of 53 patients (50%) will provide the definitive sample size. Secondary outcome measures encompass the success of biliary drainage, quality of life, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Discussion: The DRAINAGE trial is designed to identify a difference in the number of severe drainage-related complications after endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients selected to undergo a major liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register [, 11 October 2013]

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

Volume–outcome relationship of liver surgery: a nationwide analysis

Background: Evidence for an association between hospital volume and outcomes for liver surgery is abundant. The current Dutch guideline requires a minimum volume of 20 annual procedures per centre. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between hospital volume and postoperative outcomes using data from the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit. Methods: This was a nationwide study in the Netherlands. All liver resections reported in the Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit between 2014 and 2017 were included. Annual centre volume was calculated and classified in categories of 20 procedures per year. Main outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIA or higher) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 5590 liver resections were done across 34 centres with a median annual centre volume of 35 (i.q.r. 20–69) procedures. Overall major morbidity and mortality rates were 11·2 and 2·0 per cent respectively. The mortality rate was 1·9 per cent after resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), 1·2 per cent for non-CRLMs, 0·4 per cent for benign tumours, 4·9 per cent for hepatocellular carcinoma and 10·3 per cent for biliary tumours. Higher-volume centres performed more major liver resections, and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary cancer. There was no association between hospital volume and either major morbidity or mortality in multivariable analysis, after adjustment for known risk factors for adverse events. Conclusion: Hospital volume and postoperative outcomes were not associated

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone in high-risk patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: The CHARISMA randomized multicenter clinical trial

Background: Efforts to improve the outcome of liver surgery by combining curative resection with chemotherapy have failed to demonstrate de

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Prognosis after surgery for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Functionality matters

Background: Metastasized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are the leading cause of death in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Aside from tumor size, prognostic factors of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are largely unknown. The present study aimed to assess whether the prognosis of patients with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors differs from those with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related insulinomas and assessed factors associated with prognosis. Methods: Patients who underwent resection of a multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors between 1990 and 2016 were identified in 2 databases: the DutchMEN Study Group and the International MEN1 Insulinoma Study Group databases. Cox regression was performed to compare liver metastases-free survival of patients with a nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors versus those with an insulinoma and to identify factors associated with liver metastases-free survival. Results: Out of 153 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, 61 underwent resection for a nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and 92 for an insulinoma. Of the patients with resected lymph nodes, 56% (18/32) of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had lymph node metastases compared to 10% (4/41) of insulinomas (P = .001). Estimated 10-year liver metastases-free survival was 63% (95% confidence interval 42%–76%) for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 87% (72%–91%) for insulinomas. After adjustment for size, World Health Organization tumor grade, and age, nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had an increased risk for liver metastases or death (hazard ratio 3.04 [1.47–6.30]). In pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors ≥2 cm, nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (2.99 [1.22–7.33]) and World Health Organization grade 2 (2.95 [1.02–8.50]) were associated with liver metastases-free survival. Conclusion: Patients with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had a significantly lower liver metastases-free survival than patients with insulinomas. Postoperative counseling and follow-up regimens should be tumor type specific and at least consider size and World Health Organization grade

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15–20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis