Primrose, John

Objective: To establish comprehensive recommendations on the management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and to identify areas in need of future investigation. Summary Background Data: The lack of consensus in management of pCCA across institutions worldwide impairs optimal patient care and best-achievable oncological outcome. A holistic and critical assessment of the body of evidence and collaborative guidance are required. Methods: The Consensus4pCCA conference developed unbiased consensus using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury adopted comprehensive recommendations grounded on the work of eight expert panels answering predefined clinical questions and considering the best-quality evidence through a systematic review. The development of recommendations complied with GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies. Results: Seventy-one international experts considered 570 studies. Ten jury members concluded 71 recommendations covering definition and diagnosis, preoperative assessment and optimization, surgical resection, liver transplantation, and outcome reporting for pCCA patients. The consensus underscored that making patients amenable to high-quality curative resection and reducing its associated morbidity must be of highest priority. As such, multidisciplinary expertise and centralized care at all stages of disease management are critical to ensure both safety and oncological adequacy. To overcome the evidence-gap for rare diseases like pCCA, the jury urged large-scale registries to address open questions across the disease continuum and highlighted priorities for future investigation. Conclusion: The Consensus4pCCA represents an unprecedented commitment to collectively harmonize global treatment strategies for pCCA. This collective effort bridges the gap between expert opinions and clinical evidence and holds great promise to improve patient outcomes in the future.

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.

PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with resected biliary tract cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on adjuvant therapy for resected biliary tract cancer and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS Three phase III randomized controlled trials, one phase II trial, and 16 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on evidence from a phase III randomized controlled trial, patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a duration of 6 months. The dosing used in this trial is described in the qualifying statements, while it should be noted that the dose of capecitabine may also be determined by institutional and regional practices. Patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer and a microscopically positive surgical resection margin (R1 resection) may be offered chemoradiation therapy. A shared decision-making approach is recommended, considering the risk of harm and potential for benefit associated with radiation therapy for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

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.

Purpose Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. Methods We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. Results Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of ≤ 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of ≤ 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. Conclusion The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.