Coppola, Alessandro

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to have short‐term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Its application for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial.MethodsFrom 1995 to 2014, 72 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC at a single institution and were included in the study. Postoperative and long‐term outcomes of patients undergoing LDP (n = 44) or ODP (n = 28) were compared.ResultsLDP was associated with less blood loss (332 vs. 874 mL, p = 0.0012) and lower transfusion rates than ODP (18.2 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0495). Operative time was similar (254 vs. 266 min) for LDP and ODP; five patients (11.4 %) required conversion to ODP. Pancreatic fistulas (13.6 vs. 7.1 %) and major complications (13.6 vs. 25 %), were similar between LDP and ODP, respectively. Length of hospital stay (5.1 vs. 9.4 days, p = 0.0001) and time to initiate adjuvant therapy (69.4 vs. 95.6 days, p = 0.0441) was shorter for LDP than ODP. Tumor characteristics were similar but LDP was associated with more resected lymph nodes than ODP (25.9 vs. 12.7, p = 0.0001). One‐, three‐, and five‐year survival rates were similar between LDP (69, 41, and 41 %, respectively) and ODP (78, 44, and 32 %, respectively).ConclusionLDP is associated with less blood loss and need for blood transfusion, shorter hospital stay, and faster time to initiate adjuvant therapy than ODP for patients with PDAC. Postoperative outcomes and long‐term survival are similar between the two groups. LDP appears to be safe in the treatment of patients with PDAC.