Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2):study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.</p

Evidence for diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis after three episodes of acute pancreatitis : a cross-sectional multicentre international study with experimental animal model

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an end-stage disease with no specific therapy; therefore, an early diagnosis is of crucial importance. In this study, data from 1315 and 318 patients were analysed from acute pancreatitis (AP) and CP registries, respectively. The population from the AP registry was divided into AP (n=983), recurrent AP (RAP, n=270) and CP (n=62) groups. The prevalence of CP in combination with AP, RAP2, RAP3, RAP4 and RAP5+was 0%, 1%, 16%, 50% and 47%, respectively, suggesting that three or more episodes of AP is a strong risk factor for CP. Laboratory, imaging and clinical biomarkers highlighted that patients with RAP3+do not show a significant difference between RAPs and CP. Data from CP registries showed 98% of patients had at least one AP and the average number of episodes was four. We mimicked the human RAPs in a mouse model and found that three or more episodes of AP cause early chronic-like morphological changes in the pancreas. We concluded that three or more attacks of AP with no morphological changes to the pancreas could be considered as early CP (ECP).The new diagnostic criteria for ECP allow the majority of CP patients to be diagnosed earlier. They can be used in hospitals with no additional costs in healthcare.Peer reviewe

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p

Early diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is one of the most challenging disorders from the perspective of its early diagnosis and effective treatment. Within the last decade, the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis has been firmly introduced into the practice of gastroenterology. The delineation of this form as an initial stage of chronic pancreatitis is based on the need in early and effective treatment that could cease the progression of the disease and reduce the possibility of its complications. The diagnostic criteria of chronic pancreatitis have been described in details in the literature; however, specifics of the diagnosis in its early stage have been scarcely highlighted. Chronic pancreatitis is commonly diagnosed with a number of imaging techniques (they can show abnormalities in morphology of the pancreas), as well as laboratory tests (showing functional organ deficit). However, morphological and imaging techniques are insufficient for the diagnosis of the early chronic pancreatitis. A new integral strategy towards early diagnosis seems necessary, that would consider not only the morphology, but also potential etiology, risk factors of the disease and its complications in patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis. The review of the literature presents the definition of the early pancreatitis and discusses the potential of imaging techniques and functional tests in its diagnosis. An adequate strategy for the diagnosis of the early pancreatitis is formulated, based on an individual patient characteristic with suspected early chronic pancreatitis, namely, risk factors, clinical manifestations, imaging results and serological biomarkers

The Impact of the Angulus Biopsy on the Detection of Staging and the Grading of Chronic Gastritis

There is a generally recognized need for a morphological assessment of the individual risk of developing gastric cancer in a patient with chronic gastritis, according to the OLGA system (Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment). At the same time, the role of assessing the biopsy from the incisura angularis remains controversial. The aim of our study was to assess the value of incisura angularis biopsy in staging gastritis according to the OLGA system by examining the atrophic and inflammatory changes in the antrum, incisura angularis, and body. Materials and Methods: A total of 718 patients (576 women and 142 men) aged 20 to 84 years were examined. Most of the patients were in the age group of 50 to 70 years (54.6%). Depending on the detection of H. pylori and autoimmune gastritis markers, all patients were divided into three groups. The first group included 380 patients with H. pylori gastritis without signs of autoimmune gastritis. The second group consisted of 209 patients with autoimmune gastritis, in whom no infection was detected during the examination, and there were no indications of H. pylori eradication. The third group consisted of 129 patients with chronic gastritis of combined etiology (autoimmune and H. pylori). Endoscopy biopsies were taken according to the updated Sydney System. Histological assessments of the grade and the stage of gastritis were carried out according to the standard OLGA-based protocol. Then, the same assessments were evaluated without taking into account histological changes in the incisura angularis. Results: When assessing the severity of inflammatory changes in the gastric mucosa according to the OLGA system, grade II (72.3%) was most often detected in all groups of patients. A severe degree of activity of chronic gastritis was most often observed in the group of patients with H. pylori gastritis (6.1%). These indicators practically did not change if the assessment did not take the angulus biopsy into account. When assessing the severity of atrophy of the glands in the gastric mucosa in patients of the first group, mild stages of atrophy prevailed. Without taking into account the angulus biopsy, a decrease in the stage of atrophy was observed in 27 cases (7.11%), and in only 4 cases did stage IV change to stage III, while in 23 cases, discrepancies were noted only within groups with a mild stage of atrophy. There were no transitions from stage III to stage II. In the group of patients with autoimmune gastritis, pronounced stages of atrophy prevailed—in more than 77%. Without taking into account the angulus biopsy, a decrease in the stage of atrophy was observed in eight cases (3.83%), and in three (1.4%) patients, stage III was changed to stage II. In the group of patients with combined etiology (autoimmune + H. pylori), severe stages of atrophy also prevailed (70.5%). A decrease in the stage of atrophy without taking into account the angulus biopsy was only observed in three patients (2.32%), of which two cases concerned patients with mild stages of atrophy. Thus, in general, severe stages of atrophy of the gastric mucosa (stages III and IV according to the OLGA staging system) were detected in 313 patients (43.59%). If the assessment of the atrophy stage did not take into account changes in the angulus biopsy, then severe stages of atrophy (III and IV according to OLGA) were detected in 310 patients (43.17%). In total, changes in the assessment of the atrophy stage occurred in 38 patients (5.29%), and this was more often observed in patients with stages I and II of atrophy. Conclusions: Accounting for histological changes in the incisura angularis does not significantly affect the assessment of the grade and stage of chronic gastritis according to the OLGA system, regardless of the etiology of atrophic gastritis

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

Objective: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. Methods: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. Results: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. Conclusion: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy

International audienceObjective: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers.Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative.Methods: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival.Results: Of 361 patients (99 MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) vs 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/A) years, for MITP vs OTP, which was non-significant after stratification by T-stage.Conclusion: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD