Trends in treatment and survival of gallbladder cancer in the Netherlands; Identifying gaps and opportunities from a nation-wide cohort

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare in Western populations and data about treatment and outcomes are scarce. This study aims to analyze survival and identify opportunities for improvement using population-based data from a low-incidence country. GBC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 with GBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were grouped according to time period (2005-2009/2010-2016) and disease stage. Trends in treatment and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. In total 1834 patients were included: 661 (36%) patients with resected, 278 (15%) with non-resected non-metastatic, and 895 (49%) with metastatic GBC. Use of radical versus simple cholecystectomy (12% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) in early (pT1b/T2) GBC increased. More patients with metastatic GBC received chemotherapy (11% vs. 29%, p < 0.001). OS improved from 4.8 months (2005-2009) to 6.1 months (2010-2016) (p = 0.012). Median OS increased over time (2005-2009 vs. 2010-2016) in resected (19.4 to 26.8 months, p = 0.038) and metastatic (2.3 vs. 3.4 months, p = 0.001) GBC but not in unresected, non-metastatic GBC. In early GBC, patients with radical cholecystectomy had a median OS of 76.7 compared to 18.4 months for simple cholecystectomy (p < 0.001). Palliative chemotherapy showed superior (p < 0.001) survival in metasta

Axial slicing versus bivalving in the pathological examination of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens (APOLLO): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: In pancreatoduodenectomy specimens, dissection method may affect the assessment of primary tumour origin (i.e. pancreatic, distal bile duct or ampullary adenocarcinoma), which is primarily determined macroscopically. This is the first study to prospectively compare the two commonly used techniques, i.e. axial slicing and bivalving. Methods: In four centres, a randomized controlled trial was performed in specimens of patients with a suspected (pre)malignant tumour in the pancreatic head. Primary outcome measure was the level of certainty (scale 0–100) regarding tumour origin by four independent gastrointestinal pathologists based on macroscopic assessment. Secondary outcomes were inter-observer agreement and R1 rate. Results: In total, 128 pancreatoduodenectomy specimens were randomized. The level of certainty in determining the primary tumour origin did not differ between axial slicing and bivalving (mean score 72 [sd 13] vs. 68 [sd 16], p = 0.21), nor did inter-observer agreement, both being moderate (kappa 0.45 vs. 0.47). In pancreatic cancer specimens, R1 rate (60% vs. 55%, p = 0.71) and the number of harvested lymph nodes (median 16 vs. 17, p = 0.58) were similar. Conclusion: This study demonstrated no differences in determining the tumour origin between axial slicing and bivalving. Both techniques performed similarly regarding inter-observer agreement, R1 rate, and lymph node harvest

Unraveling genetic predisposition to familial or early onset gastric cancer using germline whole-exome sequencing

Recognition of individuals with a genetic predisposition to gastric cancer (GC) enables preventive measures. However, the underlying cause of genetic susceptibility to gastric cancer remains largely unexplained. We performed germline whole-exome sequencing on leukocyte DNA of 54 patients from 53 families with genetically unexplained diffuse-type and intestinal-type GC to identify novel GC-predisposing candidate genes. As young age at diagnosis and familial clustering are hallmarks of genetic tumor susceptibility, we selected patients that were diagnosed below the age of 35, patients from families with two cases of GC at or below age 60 and patients from families with three GC cases at or below age 70. All included individuals were tested negative for germline CDH1 mutations before or during the study. Variants that were possibly deleterious according to in silico predictions were filtered using several independent approaches that were based on gene function and gene mutation burden in controls. Despite a rigorous search, no obvious candidate GC predisposition genes were identified. This negative result stresses the importance of future research studies in large, homogeneous cohorts