Surgical outcome of a double versus a single pancreatoduodenectomy per operating day

Background: For logistical reasons, some high-volume centers have developed surgical programs wherein 1 surgical team performs 2 pancreatoduodenectomies on a single day. It is unclear whether this practice has a negative impact on surgical outcome. Methods: We conuducted a retrospective analysis including all consecutive open pancreatoduodenectomies in a single high-volume center (2014–2021). Pancreatoduodenectomies were grouped as the first (pancreatoduodenectomy-1) or second (pancreatoduodenectomy-2) pancreatoduodenectomy on a single day (ie, paired pancreatoduodenectomies) and as pancreatoduodenectomy-3 whenever 1 pancreatoduodenectomy was performed per day (ie, unpaired). Patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures were excluded. The primary outcomes were major morbidity (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and mortality. Results: Among 689 patients, 151 patients had undergone minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, leaving 538 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy for inclusion. The overall rate of major morbidity was 37.4% (n = 200/538) and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.7% (n = 9/538). Overall, 136 (25.3%) patients were operated in 68 pancreatoduodenectomy-1/ pancreatoduodenectomy-2 pairs and 402 (74.7%) patients as unpaired pancreatoduodenectomy (pancreatoduodenectomy-3). No differences were found between pancreatoduodenectomy-1 and pancreatoduodenectomy-2 regarding the rates of major morbidity (35.3% vs 26.5%; P = .265) and mortality (1.5% vs 0%; P = .999). Between the 68 pancreatoduodenectomy-1/ pancreatoduodenectomy-2 pairs and the 402 unpaired pancreatoduodenectomies, the rates of major morbidity (30.9% vs 39.6%; P = .071) and mortality (0.7% vs 2.0%; P = .461) did not differ significantly. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, pancreatoduodenectomy-1 was not associated with major morbidity (odds ratio = 0.913 [95% confidence interval 0.515–1.620]; P = .756), whereas pancreatoduodenectomy-2 was associated with less major morbidity (odds ratio = 0.522 [95% confidence interval 0.277–0.983]; P = .045). Conclusion: In a high-volume setting, performing 2 consecutive open pancreatoduodenectomies on a single operating day appears to be safe. This approach may be an option when logistically required

Serum CEA as a Prognostic Marker for Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Non-Elevated CA19-9 Levels Treated with FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment:A TAPS Consortium Study

Introduction: About 25% of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma have non-elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 levels at baseline, hampering evaluation of response to preoperative treatment. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a potential alternative. Methods: This retrospective cohort study from five referral centers included consecutive patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2012–2019), treated with one or more cycles of (m)FOLFIRINOX, and non-elevated CA19-9 levels (i.e., &lt; 37 U/mL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), including CEA level at baseline, restaging, and dynamics. Results: Overall, 277 patients were included in this study. CEA at baseline was elevated (≥5 ng/mL) in 53 patients (33%) and normalized following preoperative therapy in 14 patients (26%). In patients with elevated CEA at baseline, median OS in patients with CEA normalization following preoperative therapy was 33 months versus 19 months in patients without CEA normalization (p = 0.088). At time of baseline, only elevated CEA was independently associated with (worse) OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.98). At time of restaging, elevated CEA at baseline was still the only independent predictor for (worse) OS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04–1.98), whereas elevated CEA at restaging (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.77–1.77) was not. Conclusions: Serum CEA was elevated in one-third of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma having non-elevated CA19-9 at baseline. At both time of baseline and time of restaging, elevated serum CEA measured at baseline was the only predictor for (worse) OS. Therefore, serum CEA may be a useful tool for decision making at both initial staging and time of restaging in patients with non-elevated CA19-9.</p