Massani, Marco

Objective: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. Methods: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. Results: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population (https://rediscover.unipi.it/). Conclusions: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

AbstractBackgroundTransarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly used as an alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to perform an overall and individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis of studies comparing TACE and TARE.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search using pre‐specified keywords with the aid of an informationist for articles from inception to 3/2020. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was time to progression (TTP).ResultsSeventeen studies met inclusion criteria with 2465 unique patients, with one randomized trial, 4 prospective studies and 12 retrospective studies. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (42.8%) was the most common stage followed by BCLC A (30.3%) and BCLC C (29.0%). There was no difference in OS between the two modalities (−0.55 months, 95% CI −1.95 to 3.05). In three studies with available TTP data, TARE resulted in a longer TTP than TACE (mean TTP 17.5 vs. 9.8 months; mean TTP difference 4.8 months, 95% CI 1.3–8.3 months). IPD‐level meta‐analysis of 311 patients from three studies showed no difference in overall OS between the two modalities including among subgroups stratified by tumor stage and liver function. Limitations of the current literature include inconsistent length of follow‐up, inconsistency in response criteria, and safety reporting.ConclusionsCurrent data suggest TARE provides significantly longer TTP than TACE, although the two treatments do not significantly differ in terms of OS. Given limitations of the current data, there is rationale for prospective studies comparing these modalities.