Qadan, Motaz

Abstract Background Minimally invasive left-sided pancreatectomy (MIS-LP) is increasingly adopted for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs), yet its oncological safety compared with open surgery (O-LP) remains debated. Robust population-level evidence is required to guide practice. Methods Patients ≥65 years with grade 1–2 PNETs undergoing left pancreatectomy were identified from the SEER-Medicare database (2010–2019). Overall and cancer-specific survival outcomes were analysed using multilevel Cox regression after propensity-score matching (PSM). Landmark analysis from 6 months excluded early postoperative deaths. Results 772 patients were included: 257 (33%) MIS-LP and 515 (67%) O-LP. Median age was 71 years; 87% had grade 1 and 13% grade 2 tumours. Before matching, MIS-LP patients had lower comorbidity (median Charlson Index 2 versus 3, P = 0.011) and fewer with metastatic disease (2.0% versus 5.7%, P = 0.019). After PSM (MIS-LP n = 248; O-LP n = 441), 5-year overall survival was higher with MIS-LP (88.1% versus 84.5%, P = 0.03), while 5-year cancer-specific survival was similar (95.2% versus 93.5%, P = 0.11). O-LP was associated with increased risk of death (HR 1.75, 95% c.i. 1.05–2.91, P = 0.030), though not cancer-specific death (HR 1.97, 95% c.i. 0.86–4.54, P = 0.110). Notably, all 90-day mortalities (n = 15, 1.9%) occurred in the O-LP group. In landmark analysis beyond 6 months, surgical approach was no longer predictive of OS or CSS. Conclusions MIS-LP confers an early survival advantage, driven by reduced perioperative mortality, without compromising long-term oncological outcomes. As the largest population-based analysis in this setting, these findings support MIS-LP as the standard surgical approach for older patients with low- to intermediate-grade PNETs.

Background: ASCO recommends extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) following cancer surgery. However, these recommendations were based on trials using routine venography, which detects asymptomatic VTEs, and real-life efficacy is not well studied. We aimed to assess the association of extended VTE prophylaxis with the incidence of clinically significant VTE after elective cancer surgery. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study, we identified patients who underwent surgical resection for lung, breast, esophageal, gastric, pancreas, and colon cancer from 2010 to 2017 using the SEER–Medicare linked dataset. Patients were divided into 1 of 2 main groups for comparative analyses: those who received extended VTE prophylaxis after cancer surgery and those who did not. Patients who received extended VTE prophylaxis after cancer surgery were identified as those prescribed prophylactic doses of LMWH or a DOAC within 7 days of discharge, as captured in Medicare Part D files. Results: A total of 113,739 Medicare beneficiaries were identified, of whom 1,570 (1.4%) received extended VTE prophylaxis. There was a year-over-year increase in the use of extended VTE prophylaxis during the study period, rising from 0.6% in 2010 to 3.3% in 2017. The overall incidence of VTE was 1.6% at 1 month, 4.3% at 6 months, 5.7% at 12 months, with significant differences observed across cancer types ( P <.001). However, patients who received extended VTE prophylaxis had a higher 1-year cumulative incidence of postoperative VTE compared with those who did not (11.4% vs 5.3%; P <.001), an association that was consistent across cancer sites. In adjusted analyses, extended VTE prophylaxis was independently associated with an increased risk of VTE (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3–2.0; P <.001). Extended prophylaxis was also associated with a higher 1-year incidence of bleeding events compared with patients who did not receive prophylaxis (12.0% vs 8.5%; P <.001). Conclusions: The utilization of extended VTE prophylaxis after cancer surgery remains low, although it has increased every year. Paradoxically, patients who received extended VTE prophylaxis had higher incidences of clinically significant VTE and bleeding compared with those who did not, likely reflecting patient selection and surveillance bias after surgery. In light of these findings, national guidelines recommending postoperative extended VTE prophylaxis, and its use as a surrogate for quality of care, should continue to be re-examined.

The TransMet trial and Norwegian studies have shown excellent outcomes in highly selected patients undergoing liver transplant (LT) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCRLM). Our aim is to provide an updated analysis of the current state of LT for uCRLM in the United States. Adult patients with a diagnosis of uCRLM listed for LT between December 2017 and March 2025 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database and analyzed. An analysis of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) was performed. During this period, 222 patients were listed, and 158 received an LT across 33 centers. Of these, 76 (48.1%) underwent LDLT, and 82 patients (51.9%) underwent DDLT. Of the 82 deceased donors, 56 (68.2%) were out-of-sequence offers. Overall, the 3-year survival and disease-free survival rates were 66.7% and 44.0%, respectively. The 3-year survival for LDLT and DDLT was 74.1% and 57.3% ( p =0.04), respectively. While these results have not yet reached the acceptable threshold established for other LT indications, they have improved and are expected to continue improving after the implementation of prioritization points. Given the potential variability of oncologic selection criteria and graft quality, we call for the standardization of nationally accepted selection criteria for listing patients for LT with uCRLM and for providing early access to high-quality organs. To achieve this, it is imperative to create, update, and maintain national databases that allow for the collection of more granular oncological variables.