Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between anatomical subtypes of resected biliary tract cancer in a Western high-volume center

Background: Outcomes for the four anatomical subtypes of biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) - intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinoma (ICC, PHCC, DCC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) - are often combined. However, large cohorts comparing short- and long-term outcomes for the anatomical subtypes of BTC are lacking. Methods: All patients who underwent resection for pathology proven ICC, PHCC, DCC or GBC (2000–2016) from a single Western high-volume center were retrospectively selected. Clinicopathological characteristics, short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the four anatomical subtypes. Results: Overall, 361 patients with resected BTC were included (33 ICC, 135 PHCC, 148 DCC, 45 GBC). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications were 48%, 51%, 36% and 8% (p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality was 9%, 15%, 3%, 4% (p < 0.001), for ICC, PHCC, DCC, GBC. Median overall survival was 37, 42, 29 and 41 months (p = 0.722), for ICC, PHCC, DCC, GBC. Five-year survival ranged between 29% and 37%. Anatomical subtype was not an independent predictor for overall survival. Conclusion: In this large single-center cohort of resected BTC, major morbidity and 90-day mortality varied between the four anatomical subtypes of BTC, mainly due to differences in surgical approach However, a significant difference in overall survival was not detected

Clinical outcomes of patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma and intestinal-type papilla of Vater adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) and intestinal-type papilla of Vater adenocarcinoma (it-PVA) are rare malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract. Current therapeutic options are translated nowadays from treatment strategies for patients with colorectal cancer due to histopathological similarities. AIM To retrospectively investigate the clinical outcome of patients with DA and it-PVA. METHODS All patients with DA and it-PVA diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 were included at two academic centers in the Netherlands. All patients with histopathologically-confirmed DA or it-PVA were eligible for inclusion. Clinical outcome was compared between DA and it-PVA per disease stage. In the subgroup of stage IV disease, survival after local treatment of oligometastases was compared with systemic therapy or supportive care. RESULTS In total, 155 patients with DA and it-PVA were included. Patients with it-PVA more often presented with stage I disease, while DA was more often diagnosed at stage IV (P < 0.001). Of all patients, 79% were treated with curative intent. The median survival was 39 mo, and no difference in survival was found for patients with DA and it-PVA after stratification for disease stage. Seven (23%) of 31 patients with synchronous stage IV disease underwent resection of the primary tumor, combined with local treatment of oligometastases. Local treatment of metastases was associated with an overall survival of 37 mo, compared to 14 and 6 mo for systemic therapy and supportive care, respectively. CONCLUSION Survival of patients with DA and it-PVA is comparable per disease stage. These results suggest a potential benefit for local treatment strategies in selected patients with oligometastases, although additional prospective studies are needed

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (<6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence). Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence

Readily available biomarkers predict poor survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer

Background: Identification of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients with the worst prognosis could help to tailor therapy. We evaluated readily available biomarkers for the prediction of 90-day mortality in a nationwide cohort of mPC patients. Methods: Patients with synchronous mPC were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015–2017). Baseline CA19-9, albumin, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (modified) Glasgow Prognostic Score ((m)GPS composed of albumin and CRP) were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 90-day mortality. Prognostic value per predictor was quantified by Nagelkerke’s partial R2. Results: Overall, 4248 patients were included. Median overall survival was 2.2 months and 90-day mortality was 59.4% (n = 1629). All biomarkers predicted 90-day mortality in univariable analysis, and remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinically relevant factors and all other biomarkers (all p < 0.001). The prognostic value of the biomarkers combined was similar to WHO performance status. Patients who received chemotherapy had better outcomes than those who did not, regardless of biomarker levels. Conclusions: In mPC patients, albumin, CA19-9, CRP, LDH, CRP/albumin ratio, and (m)GPS are prognostic for poor survival. Biomarkers did not predict response to chemotherapy. These readily available biomarkers can be used to better inform patients and to stratify in clinical trials