Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma:a nationwide analysis

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM). Aim: assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands. Patients and methods: Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014–2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6). Results: 691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89–100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20–77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53–90%). All centers met the performance target RAS>85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 > 85%. Conclusion: This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated

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

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma:a nationwide analysis

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM). Aim: assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands. Patients and methods: Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014–2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6). Results: 691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89–100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20–77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53–90%). All centers met the performance target RAS&gt;85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 &gt; 85%. Conclusion: This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated.</p

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

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): A multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. Methods/design: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. Discussion: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018

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