Edwin, Bjørn

Introduction: Lymph-nodal involvement (N+) represents an adverse prognostic factor after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Preoperative diagnostic and staging modalities lack sensitivity for identifying N+. This study aimed to investigate preoperative carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA 19.9) in predicting the N+ stage in resectable-PDAC (R-PDAC). Methods: Patients included in a multi-institutional retrospective database of PDs performed for R-PDAC from January 2000 to June 2021 were analysed. A preoperative laboratory value of CA 19.9 greater than 37 U/l was used in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine a possible association with N+. Additionally, different cut-offs of CA 19.9 related to the preoperative clinical T (cT) stage was assessed to evaluate the risk of N+. Results: A total of 2034 PDs from thirteen centres were included in the study. CA 19.9 greater than 37 U/l was significantly associated with higher N+ at univariate and multivariate analysis ( P <0.001). CA 19.9 levels greater than 37 U/l were associated with N+ in 75.9%, 81.3%, and 85.7% of patients, respectively, in cT1, cT2, and cT3 tumours and with higher cut-off values for all cT stages. Conclusion: Lymph-nodal involvement is strongly related to preoperative CA 19.9 levels. Specially in patients staged as cT3 the CA 19.9 could represent a valid and easy tool to suspect nodal involvement. Due to these findings, R-PDAC patients with elevated CA 19.9 values should be considered in a more biologically advanced stage.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.