Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients

Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to  <35%; and very high: ≥35%). Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectom

Cribriform architecture in radical prostatectomies predicts oncological outcome in Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients

The Gleason score is an important parameter for clinical outcome in prostate cancer patients. Gleason score 8 is a heterogeneous disease including Gleason score 3 + 5, 4 + 4, and 5 + 3 tumors, and encompasses a broad range of tumor growth patterns. Our objective was to characterize individual growth patterns and identify prognostic parameters in Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients. We reviewed 1064 radical prostatectomy specimens, recorded individual Gleason 4 and 5 growth patterns as well as presence of intraductal carcinoma, and evaluated biochemical recurrence- and metastasis-free survival. Gleason score 8 disease was identified in 140 (13%) patients, of whom 76 (54%) had Gleason score 3 + 5, 46 (33%) 4 + 4, and 18 (13%) 5 + 3 disease. Invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (n = 87, 62%) was observed more frequently in Gleason score 4 + 4 (93%) than 3 + 5 (47%; P < 0.001) and 5 + 3 (44%; P < 0.001) patients. Gleason pattern 5 was present in 110 (79%) men: as single cells and/or cords in 99 (90%) and solid fields in 32 (29%) cases. Solid field pattern 5 coexisted with cribriform architecture (23/32, 72%) more frequently than nonsolid pattern 5 cases (36/78, 46%, P = 0.02). In multivariable analysis including age, prostate-specific antigen, pT-stage, surgical margin status, and lymph node metastases, presence of cribriform architecture was an independent parameter for biochemical recurrence-free (hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–3.7; P = 0.04) and metastasis-free (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0–12.3; P = 0.05) survival. In conclusion, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma occurs more frequently in Gleason score 4 + 4 prostate cancer patients than in Gleason score 3 + 5 and 5 + 3, and is an independent parameter for biochemical recurrence and metastasis. Therefore, cribriform architecture has added value in risk stratification of Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients

Minimally invasive intervention for infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis

Infected necrosis is the main indication for invasive intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The 2013 IAP/APA guidelines state that percutaneous catheter drainage should be the first step in the treatment of infected necrosis. In 50-65% of patients, additional necrosectomy is required after catheter drainage, which was traditionally done by open necrosectomy. Driven by the perceived lower complication rate, there is an increasing trend toward minimally invasive percutaneous and endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. The authors present an overview of current minimally invasive treatment options for necrotizing pancreatitis and review recent developments in clinical studie

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Item does not contain fulltex

Perforation and Fistula of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Patients with Necrotizing Pancreatitis: a Nationwide Prospective Cohort

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors, clinical course and treatment of perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal tract in a large unselected cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal (GI)-tract may occur in necrotizing pancreatitis. Data from large unselected patient populations on the incidence, risk factors, clinical outcomes, and treatment are lacking. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective database of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. GI-tract perforation and fistula were defined as spontaneous or iatrogenic discontinuation of the gastrointestinal wall. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore risk factors and to adjust for confounders to explore associations of the GI-tract perforation and fistula on the clinical course. RESULTS: A perforation or fistula of the GI-tract was identified in 139 (16%) patients, located in the stomach in 23 (14%), duodenum in 56 (35%), jejunum or ileum in 18 (11%) and colon in 64 (40%). Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48-hours after admission (OR 1.19 [95%CI 1.01-1.39]) and early organ-failure (OR 2.76 [95%CI 1.78-4.29]). Prior invasive intervention was a risk factor for developing a perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract (OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.04-6.60]). While perforation or fistula of the upper GI-tract appeared to be protective for persistent ICU-admission (OR 0.11 [95%CI 0.02-0.44]) and persistent organ failure (OR 0.15 [95%CI 0.02-0.58]), perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract was associated with a higher rate of new onset organ failure (OR 2.47 [95%CI 1.23-4.84]). When the stomach or duodenum was affected, treatment was mostly conservative (n=54, 68%). Treatment was mostly surgical when the colon was affected (n=38, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Perforation and fistula of the GI-tract occurred in one out of six patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours and early organ-failure. Prior intervention was identified as a risk factor for perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract. The clinical course was mostly affected by involvement of the lower GI-tract

Predicting success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Introduction: At least 30% of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis are successfully treated with catheter drainage alone. It is currently not possible to predict which patients also need necrosectomy. We evaluated predictive factors for successful catheter drainage. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of 130 prospectively included patients undergoing catheter drainage for (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between success of catheter drainage (ie, survival without necrosectomy) and 22 factors regarding demographics, disease severity (eg, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score, organ failure), and morphologic characteristics on computed tomography (eg, percentage of necrosis). Results: Catheter drainage was performed percutaneously in 113 patients and endoscopically in 17 patients. Infected necrosis was confirmed in 116 patients (89%). Catheter drainage was successful in 45 patients (35%). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with a reduced chance of success: male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09–0.55; P 50%: OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30–0.96; P = 0.03), and heterogeneous collection (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06–0.67; P < 0.01). A prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76. A prognostic nomogram yielded success probability of catheter drainage from 2% to 91%. Conclusions: Male sex, multiple organ failure, increasing percentage of pancreatic necrosis and heterogeneity of the collection are negative predictors for success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The constructed nomogram can guide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis

Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. Design: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. Results: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). Conclusion: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge