Association between primary origin (head, body and tail) of metastasised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and oncologic outcome : A population-based analysis

Introduction: The relation between the primary origin of metastasised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)—head, body or tail—metastatic patterns and outcomes has not yet been investigated in large population-based studies. Methods: Patients with metastasised PDAC at diagnosis from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included (2005–2015). We compared number of metastatic organ sites (1, 2, ≥3) and specific metastatic organ sites (peritoneum, liver, lung and extra-regional lymph nodes) for the different primary tumour locations. Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association of tumour location and metastatic organ site(s) with overall survival. Results: Overall, we included 9952 patients with metastasised PDAC. The primary origin was head in 5644 (57%), body in 1671 (17%) and tail in 2637 (26%) patients. Differences between primary origins were the number of metastatic organ sites (proportions ≥3 sites for head: 4%, for body: 8% and for tail: 13%, p < 0.0001) and peritoneal metastases (present in 13% for head, 24% for body and 30% for tail; p < 0.0001). Median overall survival was 2.6 months for head PDAC (reference), 2.4 months for body PDAC (HR 1.02 [0.97–1.08]) and 1.9 months for tail PDAC (HR 1.20 [1.15–1.26]). Of patients with one metastatic organ site, the worst survival compared with other sites was seen with liver only metastases (2.5 months vs. 2.7–5.1 months), and the best survival for patients, with extra-regional lymph node only metastases (5.1 months). Conclusion: Metastatic patterns differ among the primary origins for PDAC with metastasised tail tumours having more metastatic sites, more often peritoneal metastases and worse survival

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer patients

Background: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. Results: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Conclusion: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance

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 enhanced recovery setting. After the first 40 patients (phase 2), the data safety monitoring board will assess safety outcomes (not blinded for treatment allocation) and decide on continuation to phase 3. Patients from phase 2 will then be included in phase 3. The primary outcome measure is time (days) to functional recovery. All patients will be blinded for the surgical approach, at least until postoperative day 5, but preferably until functional recovery has been attained. Secondary outcome measures are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life, and costs. DISCUSSION: The LEOPARD-2 trial is designed to assess whether MIPD reduces time to functional recovery, as compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5689 . Registered on 2 March 2016

Preoperative misdiagnosis of pancreatic and periampullary cancer in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

Introduction: Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer. Methods: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer). Results: In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pa

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (ENDURO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs. Methods The ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs. Discussion The ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. Trial registration International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): NL9592. Registered on 07 July 2021

Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. Methods This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. Discussion The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Trial registration Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting