C-reactive protein is superior to white blood cell count for early detection of complications after pancreatoduodenectomy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study

Background: Early detection of major complications after pancreatoduodenectomy could improve patient management and decrease the “failure-to-rescue” rate. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to compare the value of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in the early detection of complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: We assessed pancreatoduodenectomies between January 2012 and December 2017. Major complications were defined as grade III or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was a secondary endpoint. ROC-curve and logistic regression analysis were performed for CRP and WBC. Results were validated in an external cohort. Results: In the development cohort (n = 285), 103 (36.1%) patients experienced a major complication. CRP was superior to WBC in detecting major complications on postoperative day (POD) 3 (AUC:0.74 vs. 0.54, P < 0.001) and POD 5 (AUC:0.77 vs. 0.68, P = 0.031), however not on POD 7 (AUC:0.77 vs. 0.76, P = 0.773). These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis and in the validation cohort (n = 202). CRP was also superior to WBC in detecting POPF on POD 3 (AUC: 0.78 vs. 0.54, P < 0.001) and POD 5 (AUC: 0.83 vs. 0.71, P < 0.001). Conclusion: CRP appears to be superior to WBC in the early detection of major complications and POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy

Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes

Background: Registries of pancreatic surgery have become increasingly popular as they facilitate both quality improvement and clinical research. We aimed to compare registries for design, variables collected, patient characteristics, treatment strategies, clinical outcomes, and pathology. Methods: Registered variables and outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (2014–2017) in 4 nationwide or multicenter pancreatic surgery registries from the United States of America (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie - Studien-, Dokumentations- und Qualitätszentrum), the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit), and Sweden (Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry) were compared. A core registry set of 55 parameters was identified and evaluated using relative and absolute largest differences between extremes (smallest versus largest). Results: Overall, 22,983 pancreatoduodenectomies were included (15,224, 3,558, 2,795, and 1,406 in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Design of the registries varied because 20 out of 55 (36.4%) core parameters were not available in 1 or more registries. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was administered in 27.6%, 4.9%, 7.0%, and 3.4% (relative largest difference 8.1, absolute largest difference 24.2%, P < .001). Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 7.8%, 4.5%, 13.5%, and unknown (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 9.0%, P < .001). Median length of stay was 8.0, 16.0, 12.0, and 11.0 days (relative largest difference 2.0, absolute largest difference 8.0, P < .001). Reoperation was performed in 5.7%, 17.1%, 8.7%, and 11.2% (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 11.4%, P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.3%, 4.7%, 3.6%, and 2.7% (relative largest difference 3.6, absolute largest difference 3.4%, P < .001). Conclusion: Considerable differences exist in the design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes in 4 Western registries of pancreatic surgery. The absolute largest differences of 24.3% for the use of preoperative chemotherapy, 9.0% for minimally invasive surgery, 11.4% for reoperation rate, and 3.4% for in-hospital mortality require further study and improvement. This analysis provides 55 core parameters for pancreatic surgery registries

The diagnostic work-up and outcomes of ‘presumed’ idiopathic acute pancreatitis: A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre observational cohort

Introduction: After standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16–27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis. Methods: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled ‘presumed’ IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in ‘presumed’ IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment. Results: Out of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of ‘presumed’ IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT (n = 124, diagnostic yield 8%), EUS (n = 62, yield 35%), MRI/MRCP (n = 56, yield 33%), repeat ultrasound (n = 97, yield 21%), IgG4 (n = 54, yield 9%) and ERCP (n = 15, yield 47%). In 64 of 176 patients (36%) an aetiological diagnosis was established, mostly biliary (n = 39). In 13 out of 176 of patients (7%) a neoplasm was diagnosed. If additional diagnostic workup revealed an aetiology, the recurrence rate was lower in the treated patients than in the patients without a definite aetiology (15% versus 43%, p = 0.014). Conclusion: Additional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of ‘presumed’ IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence

Care after pancreatic resection according to an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula versus current practice (PORSCH-trial): design and rationale of a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resection is a major abdominal operation with 50% risk of postoperative complications. A common complication is pancreatic fistula, which may have severe clinical consequences such as postoperative bleeding, organ failure and death. The objective of this study is to investigate whether implementation of an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula may improve outcomes after pancreatic resection. METHODS: This is a nationwide stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, superiority trial, designed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. During a period of 22 months, all Dutch centers performing pancreatic surgery will cross over in a randomized order from current practice to best practice according to the algorithm. This evidence-based and consensus-based algorithm will provide da

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Work-up, staging, and local intervention strategies

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) has several definitions but essentially is a nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer, in which upfront resection is considered not beneficial due to extensive vascular involvement and consequent high chance of a nonradical resection. The introduction of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab) has had major implications for the management and outcome of patients with LAPC. After 4–6 months induction chemotherapy, the majority of patients have stable disease or even tumor-regression. Of these, 12 to 35% are successfully downstaged to resectable disease. Several studies have reported a 30–35 months overall survival after resection; although it currently remains unclear if this is a result of the resection or the good response to chemotherapy. Following chemotherapy, selection of patients for resection is difficult, as contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CT) scan is unreliable in differentiating between viable tumor and fibrosis. In case a resection is not considered possible but stable disease is observed, local ablative techniques are being studied, such as irreversible electroporation, radiofrequency ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy. Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized studies will ultimately have to confirm the exact role of both surgical exploration and ablation in these patients. Since evidence-based guidelines for the management of LAPC are lacking, this review proposes a standardized approach for the treatment of LAPC based on the best available evidence

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

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. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

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

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation