Evidence-based Guidelines for the Management of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatic Surgery

To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) after pancreatic surgery

The multi-societal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases:an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE

Background: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases with a focus on terminology, diagnosis and management. Methods: This project was a multi-organisational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process and those with 70% agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising twelve key statements. Results: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term “early metachronous metastases” applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour with “late metachronous metastases” applied to those detected after 12 months. Disappearing metastases applies to lesions which are no longer detectable on MR scan after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. Conclusions: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases.</p

The multi-societal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases:an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE

Background: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases with a focus on terminology, diagnosis and management. Methods: This project was a multi-organisational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process and those with 70% agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising twelve key statements. Results: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term “early metachronous metastases” applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour with “late metachronous metastases” applied to those detected after 12 months. Disappearing metastases applies to lesions which are no longer detectable on MR scan after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. Conclusions: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases

Outcomes of elective liver surgery worldwide: a global, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study

Background: The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes. Methods: LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January–December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien–Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141). Results: A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives

Complete clinical response of liver metastasis after chemotherapy: To resect or not?

This paper aims to update the therapeutical strategies in liver metastasis with complete clinical response (CCR) after chemotherapy and to determine if surgery is always necessary after CCR. The aim of chemotherapy is to achieve a good clinical response rather than CCR of liver metastasis. The CCR of liver metastasis after chemotherapy cannot be considered synonymous with a cure. The resection of the hepatic segment where there was hepatic metastases with CCR after chemotherapy theoretically prevents recurrence, improves survival and makes it possible to confirm whether there has been a complete pathological response. However, the medical literature about this topic is scarce and sometimes contradictory

Clinical outcomes after total pancreatectomy: a prospective multicenter pan-european snapshot study

[EN]Objective: To assess outcomes among patients undergoing total pancreatectomy (TP) including predictors for complications and in-hospital mortality. Background: Current studies on TP mostly originate from high-volume centers and span long time periods and therefore may not reflect daily practice. Methods: This prospective pan-European snapshot study included patients who underwent elective (primary or completion) TP in 43 centers in 16 European countries (June 2018–June 2019). Subgroup analysis included cutoff values for annual volume of pancreatoduodenectomies (<60 vs ≥60). Predictors for major complications and in-hospital mortality were assessed in multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total, 277 patients underwent TP, mostly for malignant disease (73%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 70 patients (25%). Median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 9–18) and 40 patients were readmitted (15%). In-hospital mortality was 5% and 90-day mortality 8%. In the subgroup analysis, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients operated in centers with ≥60 pancreatoduodenectomies compared <60 (4% vs 10%, P = 0.046). In multivariable analysis, annual volume <60 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.18–12.16, P = 0.026), age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.14, P = 0.046), and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 11.89, 95% CI 2.64–53.61, P = 0.001) were associated with in-hospital mortality. ASA ≥3 (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.56–5.26, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.25–9.90, P = 0.017) were associated with major complications. Conclusion: This pan-European prospective snapshot study found a 5% inhospital mortality after TP. The identified predictors for mortality, including low-volume centers, age, and increased blood loss, may be used to improve outcomes

Clinical Outcomes after Total Pancreatectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Pan-European Snapshot Study.

To assess outcomes among patients undergoing total pancreatectomy (TP) including predictors for complications and in-hospital mortality. Current studies on TP mostly originate from high-volume centers and span long time periods and therefore may not reflect daily practice. This prospective pan-European snapshot study included patients who underwent elective (primary or completion) TP in 43 centers in 16 European countries (June 2018-June 2019). Subgroup analysis included cut-off values for annual volume of pancreatoduodenectomies (<60 vs. ≥60). Predictors for major complications and in-hospital mortality were assessed in multivariable logistic regression. In total, 277 patients underwent TP, mostly for malignant disease (73%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 70 patients (25%). Median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 9-18) and 40 patients were readmitted (15%). In-hospital mortality was 5% and 90-day mortality 8%. In the subgroup analysis, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients operated in centers with ≥60 pancreatoduodenectomies compared < 60 (4% vs. 10%, p = 0.046). In multivariable analysis, annual volume < 60 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 3.78, 95%CI 1.18-12.16, p = 0.026), age (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.046), and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 11.89, 95%CI 2.64-53.61, p = 0.001) were associated with in-hospital mortality. ASA ≥3 (OR 2.87, 95%CI 1.56-5.26, p = 0.001) and estimated blood loss ≥2L (OR 3.52, 95%CI 1.25-9.90, p = 0.017) were associated with major complications. This pan-European prospective snapshot study found a 5% in-hospital after TP. The identified predictors for mortality, including low-volume centers, age, and increased blood loss, may be used to improve outcomes

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events

Surgical outcomes of gallbladder cancer: the OMEGA retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study

Background Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC).Methods The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity.Findings On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84-1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95-1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79-1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16-1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02-1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03-1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3-3.52], p &lt; 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62-3.02], p &lt; 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55-5.73], p &lt; 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02-1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91-1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used.Interpretation In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international col-laborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit.Funding Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund.Copyright &amp; COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)