Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes

Background: Dutch guidelines indicate that treatment of pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies should be started within 3 weeks of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. This study aimed to assess the impact of time to surgery on oncological outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients scheduled for pancreatoduodenectomy and who were discussed in an MDT meeting from May 2012 to December 2016 were eligible. Time to surgery was defined as days between the final preoperative MDT meeting and surgery, categorized in tertiles (short interval, 18 days or less; intermediate, 19–32 days; long, 33 days or more). Oncological outcomes included overall survival, resection rate and R0 resection rate. Results: A total of 2027 patients were included, of whom 677, 665 and 685 had a short, intermediate and long time interval to surgery respectively. Median time to surgery was 25 (i.q.r. 14–36) days. Longer time to surgery was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 0⋅99, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅87 to 1⋅13; P = 0⋅929), resection rate (relative risk (RR) 0⋅96, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅91 to 1⋅01; P = 0⋅091) or R0 resection rate (RR 1⋅01, 0⋅94 to 1⋅09; P = 0⋅733). Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a long time interval had a lower resection rate (RR 0⋅92, 0⋅85 to 0⋅99; P = 0⋅029). Discussion: A longer time interval between the last MDT meeting and pancreatoduodenectomy did not decrease overall survival

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (< 10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods/design: LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhan

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

Textbook Outcome Nationwide Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Pancreatic Surgery:Nationwide Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Pancreatic Surgery

Background: Textbook outcome (TO) is a multidimensional measure for quality assurance, reflecting the ‘‘ideal’’ surgical outcome. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for all indications between 2014 and 2017, queried from the nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. An international survey was conducted among 24 experts from 10 countries to reach consensus on the requirements for TO in pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify TO predictors. Between-hospital variation in TO rates was compared using observed-versus-expected rates. Results: Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (all ISGPS grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien–Dindo III), readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 3341 patients were included (2633 (79%) PD and 708 (21%) DP) of whom 60.3% achieved TO; 58.3% for PD and 67.4% for DP. On multivariable analysis, ASA class 3 predicted a worse TO rate after PD (ASA 3 OR 0.59 [0.44–0.80]), whereas a dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) and pancreatic ductal ade

Impact of complications after resection of pancreatic cancer on disease recurrence and survival, and mediation effect of adjuvant chemotherapy:nationwide, observational cohort study

Background: The causal pathway between complications after pancreatic cancer resection and impaired long-term survival remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of complications after pancreatic cancer resection on disease-free interval and overall survival, with adjuvant chemotherapy as a mediator.Methods: This observational study included all patients undergoing pancreatic cancer resection in the Netherlands (2014-2017). Clinical data were extracted from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Recurrence and survival data were collected additionally. In causal mediation analysis, direct and indirect effect estimates via adjuvant chemotherapy were calculated.Results: In total, 1071 patients were included. Major complications (hazards ratio 1.22 (95 per cent c.i. 1.04 to 1.43); P = 0.015 and hazards ratio 1.25 (95 per cent c.i. 1.08 to 1.46); P = 0.003) and organ failure (hazards ratio 1.86 (95 per cent c.i. 1.32 to 2.62); P &lt; 0.001 and hazards ratio 1.89 (95 per cent c.i. 1.36 to 2.63); P &lt; 0.001) were associated with shorter disease-free interval and overall survival respectively. The effects of major complications and organ failure on disease-free interval (-1.71 (95 per cent c.i. -2.27 to -1.05) and -3.05 (95 per cent c.i. -4.03 to -1.80) respectively) and overall survival (-1.92 (95 per cent c.i. -2.60 to -1.16) and -3.49 (95 per cent c.i. -4.84 to -2.03) respectively) were mediated by adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, organ failure directly affected disease-free interval (-5.38 (95 per cent c.i. -9.27 to -1.94)) and overall survival (-6.32 (95 per cent c.i. -10.43 to -1.99)). In subgroup analyses, the association was found in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.Conclusion: Major complications, including organ failure, negatively impact survival in patients after pancreatic cancer resection, largely mediated by adjuvant chemotherapy. Prevention or adequate treatment of complications and use of neoadjuvant treatment may improve oncological outcomes.</p

Predicting Long-term Disease-free Survival after Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma:A Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective: To develop a prediction model for long-term (≥5 years) disease-free survival (DFS) after the resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Despite high recurrence rates, 10% of patients have long-term DFS after PDAC resection. A model to predict long-term DFS may aid individualized prognostication and shared decision-making. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent PDAC resection in the Netherlands (2014-2016). The best-performing prognostic model was selected by Cox-proportional hazard analysis and Akaike's Information Criterion, presented by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Internal validation was performed, and discrimination and calibration indices were assessed. Results: In all, 836 patients with a median follow-up of 67 months (interquartile range 51-79) were analyzed. Long-term DFS was seen in 118 patients (14%). Factors predictive of long-term DFS were low preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (logarithmic; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.10-1.32), no vascular resection (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.58), T1 or T2 tumor stage (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.04, and HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.39, respectively), well/moderate tumor differentiation (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.22-1.68), absence of perineural and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11-1.81 and HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.96-1.36, respectively), N0 or N1 nodal status (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.54-2.40, and HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.11-1.60, respectively), R0 resection margin status (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07-1.46), no major complications (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97-1.35) and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.47-2.06). Moderate performance (concordance index 0.68) with adequate calibration (slope 0.99) was achieved. Conclusions: The developed prediction model, readily available at www.pancreascalculator.com, can be used to estimate the probability of long-term DFS after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.</p

Nationwide practice and outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic head and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) over plastic stents in preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. This study aims to assess nationwide practice and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic head and periampullary cancer who underwent EBD before pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2017-2018). Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were performed. RESULTS: In total, 575/1056 patients (62.0%) underwent preoperative EBD: 246 SEMS (42.8%) and 329 plastic stents (57.2%). EBD-related complications were comparable between the groups (44/246 (17.9%) vs. 64/329 (19.5%), p = 0.607), including pancreatitis (22/246 (8.9%) vs. 25/329 (7.6%), p = 0.387). EBD-related cholangitis was reduced after SEMS placement (10/246 (4.1%) vs. 32/329 (9.7%), p = 0.043), which was confirmed in multivariable analysis (OR 0.36 95%CI 0.15-0.87, p = 0.023). Major postoperative complications did not differ (58/246 (23.6%) vs. 90/329 (27.4%), p = 0.316), whereas postoperative pancreatic fistula (24/246 (9.8%) vs. 61/329 (18.5%), p = 0.004; OR 0.50 95%CI 0.27-0.94, p = 0.031) and hospital stay (14.0 days vs. 17.4 days, p = 0.005; B 2.86 95%CI -5.16 to -0.57, p = 0.014) were less after SEMS placement. CONCLUSION: This study found that preoperative EBD frequently involved plastic stents. SEMS seemed associated with lower risks of cholangitis and less postoperative pancreatic fistula, but without an increased pancreatitis risk

Predicting overall survival and resection in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX:Development and internal validation of two nomograms

Background and Objectives Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are increasingly treated with FOLFIRINOX, resulting in improved survival and resection of tumors that were initially unresectable. It remains unclear, however, which specific patients benefit from FOLFIRINOX. Two nomograms were developed predicting overall survival (OS) and resection at the start of FOLFIRINOX for LAPC. Methods From our multicenter, prospective LAPC registry in 14 Dutch hospitals, LAPC patients starting first-line FOLFIRINOX (April 2015-December 2017) were included. Stepwise backward selection according to the Akaike Information Criterion was used to identify independent baseline predictors for OS and resection. Two prognostic nomograms were generated. Results A total of 252 patients were included, with a median OS of 14 months. Thirty-two patients (13%) underwent resection, with a median OS of 23 months. Older age, female sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index 1, involvement of the superior mesenteric artery, celiac trunk, and superior mesenteric vein >= 270 degrees were independent factors decreasing the probability of resection (c-index: 0.79). Conclusions Two nomograms were developed to predict OS and resection in patients with LAPC before starting treatment with FOLFIRINOX. These nomograms could be beneficial in the shared decision-making process and counseling of these patients

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups. Results: A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups. Conclusion: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups

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