Poruk, Katherine

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.

Background: Upfront resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is defined by the NCCN as disease with ≤180° portomesenteric vein (PMV) abutment. However, the clinical significance of PMV abutment in this cohort remains unexplored, and we sought to investigate its impact. Methods: This multi-institutional study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for upfront resectable PDAC from 2002 to 2023. Patients with PDAC with ≤180° PMV abutment were compared with those without. Overall survival (OS) was compared and stratified based on whether patients underwent upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Results: Among 1,446 patients included, 521 (36.0%) had PMV abutment. Median OS for patients with PMV abutment was 28.8 months compared with 31.2 months for those without ( P =.17). In a stratified analysis of patients who underwent upfront surgery, patients with PMV abutment had worse OS (19.2 vs 27.6 months; P <.05) and lower R0 resection rates (63.1% vs 87.2%; P <.05) compared with those without. However, in patients who underwent NAT, this difference in R0 resection rate was not observed (91.4% vs 94.0%, respectively; P =.27). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in median OS with NAT (42.5 vs 51.6 months, respectively; P =.48). Conclusions: In this largest cohort to date of patients with upfront resectable PDAC, PMV abutment was associated with worse OS compared with no PMV abutment when an upfront resection strategy was used. The use of NAT in patients with PMV abutment mitigated this survival difference with increased R0 resection rates. These findings suggest that patients with upfront resectable PDAC with PMV abutment benefit from a NAT approach for optimal survival outcomes, and that the current criteria guidelines need to be redefined.

Introduction Due to rising incidence of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) malignancies and more effective therapies, there are increased survivors after curative surgery but little emphasis is placed on survivorship. This study aims to evaluate the value and yield of postoperative surveillance of surgically treated HPB cancer patients within a single surgeon’s practice. Methods A retrospective 1-year (2024) review identified 128 unique patients with prior surgical resection of a HPB malignancy undergoing active cancer surveillance by the surgical team. We excluded patients with benign indications for surgery or active cancer surveillance outside of the surgical team. Results Of these, 112 (87.5%) and 16 (12.5%) underwent pancreatic and hepatobiliary resection, respectively. Median follow up was 1.5 years from the index operation (IQR: 0.7-2.8 years). Pancreatic pathology was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), neuroendocrine, or miscellaneous in 70, 25, and 9 patients, respectively. Hepatobiliary pathology was cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), metastatic colorectal cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma in 16, 6, and 2 patients, respectively. We identified 12 (9.3%) patients who had findings during the study time period resulting in a repeat HPB surgery. In addition, we identified 12 (9.3%) patients who required referral to another department for additional medical, surgical, or interventional treatments. The remaining 104 (81.2%) patients had findings of either no disease recurrence or stable disease with continued surveillance as a recommendation. Conclusion This study underscores the value of cancer surveillance for HPB cancer patients, demonstrating a yield of nearly 20% of patients with findings requiring repeat surgical intervention or referral to other departments.

Background Whistal (Whipple + Distal) is a rare parenchyma-preserving technique for select patients with disease in both the pancreatic head and tail, sparing a disease-free middle segment. It may also be used after prior partial pancreatectomy. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of treatment for pancreatic diseases such as PDAC, RCC metastasis, and multifocal IPMN. Whistal may balance oncologic control with pancreatic function preservation. Though infrequent, it is practiced and reported in literature. Methods With IRB approval, a retrospective review of a prospective database (Aug 1999-Mar 2024) identified Whistal cases, categorized as staged Whistal (SW) or concomitant whistal (CW). Perioperative outcomes were assessed via Clavien-Dindo and ISGPS. A PubMed search identified reported middle segment pancreatectomy (Whistal) cases. Results Of 2008 resections (Aug 1999-Mar 2024), 5 were Whistals (3 CW, 2 SW) for PDAC (n = 3), RCC (n = 1), IPMN (n = 1), and bile duct stricture (n = 1). Rates for major morbidity, POPF, and DGE were each 40%. Literature review found 26 papers reporting 52 additional Whistal cases. Conclusion Whistal is safe for select patients, but wider adoption and long-term data are needed to confirm its efficacy.

Background: Despite numerous potential benefits of outpatient surgery, there is currently a lack of national benchmarking data available for hospitals and surgeons to compare their own outcomes as they transition toward outpatient surgery. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent 14 common general surgery operations from 2016 to 2020 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Operations were selected based on frequency and the ability to be performed both inpatient and outpatient. Postoperative complications and readmissions were compared between patients who underwent inpatient vs outpatient surgery. After adjusting for patient comorbidities, multivariable models assessed the effect of patient characteristics on the odds of experiencing postoperative complications. A separate multi-institutional study of 21 affiliated hospitals assessed practice variation. Results: In 13 of the 14 studied procedures, complications were lower for patients who were selected for outpatient surgery (all P<0.01); minimally invasive (MIS) adrenalectomy showed no difference (P=0.61). Multivariable analysis confirmed these findings; the odds of experiencing any adverse events were lower following outpatient surgery in all operations but MIS adrenalectomy (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.47–2.02). Analysis of institutional practices demonstrated variation in the rate of outpatient surgery in certain breast, endocrine, and hernia repair operations. Conclusions: Institutional practice patterns may explain the national variation in the rate of outpatient surgery. While the present data does not support the adoption of outpatient surgery to less optimal candidates, addressing unexplained practice variations could result in improved utilization of outpatient surgery.