Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy:the SEAL score

Background Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score. Methods This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally. Results Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification. Conclusion The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.The Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score was developed using data from the TENTACLE-Esophagus study, an international, multicentre retrospective cohort study including 1509 patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. The SEAL score was developed to determine anastomotic leak severity at diagnosis, and combines 12 leak-related parameters at diagnosis. The score may be useful in clinical practice and could improve future research.</p

Structured alcohol cessation support program versus current practice in acute alcoholic pancreatitis (PANDA):Study protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial

Background/objectives: The most important risk factor for recurrent pancreatitis after an episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis is continuation of alcohol use. Current guidelines do not recommend any specific treatment strategy regarding alcohol cessation. The PANDA trial investigates whether implementation of a structured alcohol cessation support program prevents pancreatitis recurrence after a first episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Methods: PANDA is a nationwide cluster randomised superiority trial. Participating hospitals are randomised for the investigational management, consisting of a structured alcohol cessation support program, or current practice. Patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis caused by harmful drinking (AUDIT score &gt;7 and &lt; 16 for men and &gt;6 and &lt; 14 for women) will be included. The primary endpoint is recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include cessation or reduction of alcohol use, other alcohol-related diseases, mortality, quality of life, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. The follow-up period comprises one year after inclusion. Discussion: This is the first multicentre trial with a cluster randomised trial design to investigate whether a structured alcohol cessation support program reduces recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients after a first episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis, as compared with current practice. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL8852). Prospectively registered.</p

Splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis:a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort

Background: Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective necrotizing pancreatitis cohort. Multivariable analyses were used to identify risk factors and compare the clinical course of patients with and without SVT. Results: SVT was detected in 97 of the 432 included patients (22%) (median onset: 4 days). Risk factors were left, central, or subtotal necrosis (OR 28.52; 95% CI 20.11–40.45), right or diffuse necrosis (OR 5.76; 95% CI 3.89–8.51), and younger age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90–0.97). Patients with SVT had higher rates of bleeding (n = 10,11%) and bowel ischemia (n = 4,4%) compared to patients without SVT (n = 14,4% and n = 2,0.6%; OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.27–8.23 and OR 7.29; 95% CI 1.31–40.4, respectively), and were independently associated with ICU admission (adjusted OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.37–4.68). Spontaneous recanalization occurred in 62% of patients (n = 40/71). Radiological and clinical outcomes did not differ between patients treated with and without anticoagulants. Discussion: SVT is a common and early complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, associated with parenchymal necrosis and younger age. SVT is associated with increased complications and a worse clinical course, whereas anticoagulant use does not appear to affect outcomes.</p

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer:large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.</p

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. Objective: To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life. Results: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333)

Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P =.004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P =.009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P =.11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar

Structural and cellular features in metaphyseal and diaphyseal periosteum of osteoporotic rats

Despite the important physiological role of periosteum in the pathogenesis and treatment of osteoporosis, little is known about the structural and cellular characteristics of periosteum in osteoporosis. To study the structural and cellular differences in both diaphyseal and metaphyseal periosteum of osteoporotic rats, samples from the right femur of osteoporotic and normal female Lewis rats were collected and tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, antibodies or staining kit against tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), von Willebrand (vWF), tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). The results showed that the osteoporotic rats had much thicker and more cellular cambial layer of metaphyseal periosteum compared with other periosteal areas and normal rats (P < 0.001). The number of TRAP+ osteoclasts in bone resorption pits, VEGF+ cells and the degree of vascularization were found to be greater in the cambial layer of metaphyseal periosteum of osteoporotic rats (P < 0.05), while no significant difference was detected in the number of ALP+ cells between the two groups. Sympathetic nerve fibers identified by TH staining were predominantly located in the cambial layer of metaphyseal periosteum of osteoporotic rats. No obvious difference in the expression of CGRP between the two groups was found. In conclusion, periosteum may play an important role in the cortical bone resorption in osteoporotic rats and this pathological process may be regulated by the sympathetic nervous system

Treatment and overall survival of four types of non-metastatic periampullary cancer:nationwide population-based cohort study

Background: Periampullary adenocarcinoma consists of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC), ampullary cancer (AC), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment modalities and overall survival by tumor origin. Methods: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic periampullary cancer in 2012–2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was studied with Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by origin. Results: Among the 8758 patients included, 68% had PDAC, 13% DC, 12% AC, and 7% DA. Resection was performed in 35% of PDAC, 56% of DC, 70% of AC, and 59% of DA. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy was administered in 22% of PDAC, 7% of DC, 7% of AC, and 12% of DA. Three-year OS was highest for AC (37%) and DA (34%), followed by DC (21%) and PDAC (11%). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS among PDAC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55–0.69) and DC (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.48–0.98), but not AC (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.62–1.22) and DA (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.48–1.50). Conclusion: This retrospective study identified considerable differences in treatment modalities and OS between the four periampullary cancer origins in daily clinical practice. An improved OS after adjuvant chemotherapy could not be demonstrated in patients with AC and DA

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS):study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered