Citations

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

AbstractBackgroundHepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.MethodsEight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two.A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.ConclusionsThese guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher‐quality evidence.

Abstract In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo‐biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail‐out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail‐out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Management bundles that define items or procedures strongly recommended in clinical practice have been used in many guidelines in recent years. Application of these bundles facilitates the adaptation of guidelines and helps improve the prognosis of target diseases. In Tokyo Guidelines 2013 ( TG 13), we proposed management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Here, in Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18), we redefine the management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Critical parts of the bundles in TG 18 include the diagnostic process, severity assessment, transfer of patients if necessary, and therapeutic approach at each time point. Observance of these items and procedures should improve the prognosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Studies are now needed to evaluate the dissemination of these TG 18 bundles and their effectiveness. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract We propose a new flowchart for the treatment of acute cholecystitis ( AC ) in the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). Grade III AC was not indicated for straightforward laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Lap‐C). Following analysis of subsequent clinical investigations and drawing on Big Data in particular, TG 18 proposes that some Grade III AC can be treated by Lap‐C when performed at advanced centers with specialized surgeons experienced in this procedure and for patients that satisfy certain strict criteria. For Grade I, TG 18 recommends early Lap‐C if the patients meet the criteria of Charlson comorbidity index ( CCI ) ≤5 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification ( ASA ‐ PS ) ≤2. For Grade II AC , if patients meet the criteria of CCI ≤5 and ASA ‐ PS ≤2, TG 18 recommends early Lap‐C performed by experienced surgeons; and if not, after medical treatment and/or gallbladder drainage, Lap‐C would be indicated. TG 18 proposes that Lap‐C is indicated in Grade III patients with strict criteria. These are that the patients have favorable organ system failure, and negative predictive factors, who meet the criteria of CCI ≤3 and ASA ‐ PS ≤2 and who are being treated at an advanced center (where experienced surgeons practice). If the patient is not considered suitable for early surgery, TG 18 recommends early/urgent biliary drainage followed by delayed Lap‐C once the patient's overall condition has improved. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis were globally disseminated and various clinical studies about the management of acute cholecystitis were reported by many researchers and clinicians from all over the world. The 1 st edition of the Tokyo Guidelines 2007 ( TG 07) was revised in 2013. According to that revision, the TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis provided better specificity and higher diagnostic accuracy. Thorough our literature search about diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis, new and strong evidence that had been released from 2013 to 2017 was not found with serious and important issues about using TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis. On the other hand, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis has been validated in numerous studies. As a result of these reviews, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis was significantly associated with parameters including 30‐day overall mortality, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, and medical costs. In terms of severity assessment, breakthrough and intensive literature for revising severity grading was not reported. Consequently, TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading were judged from numerous validation studies as useful indicators in clinical practice and adopted as TG 18/ TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis without any modification. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

AbstractThe initial management of patients with suspected acute biliary infection starts with the measurement of vital signs to assess whether or not the situation is urgent. If the case is judged to be urgent, initial medical treatment should be started immediately including respiratory/circulatory management if required, without waiting for a definitive diagnosis. The patient's medical history is then taken; an abdominal examination is performed; blood tests, urinalysis, and diagnostic imaging are carried out; and a diagnosis is made using the diagnostic criteria for cholangitis/cholecystitis. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed, initial medical treatment should be started immediately, severity should be assessed according to the severity grading criteria for acute cholangitis/cholecystitis, and the patient's general status should be evaluated. For mild acute cholangitis, in most cases initial treatment including antibiotics is sufficient, and most patients do not require biliary drainage. However, biliary drainage should be considered if a patient does not respond to initial treatment. For moderate acute cholangitis, early endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is indicated. If the underlying etiology requires treatment, this should be provided after the patient's general condition has improved; endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent choledocholithotomy may be performed together with biliary drainage. For severe acute cholangitis, appropriate respiratory/circulatory management is required. Biliary drainage should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's general condition has been improved by initial treatment and respiratory/circulatory management. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Since the publication of the Tokyo Guidelines in 2007 and their revision in 2013, appropriate management for acute cholecystitis has been more clearly established. Since the last revision, several manuscripts, especially for alternative endoscopic techniques, have been reported; therefore, additional evaluation and refinement of the 2013 Guidelines is required. We describe a standard drainage method for surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis and the latest developed endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques described in the updated Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18). Our study confirmed that percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage should be considered the first alternative to surgical intervention in surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Also, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage or endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage can be considered in high‐volume institutes by skilled endoscopists. In the endoscopic transpapillary approach, either endoscopic naso‐gallbladder drainage or gallbladder stenting can be considered for gallbladder drainage. We also introduce special techniques and the latest outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage studies. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Bile duct injury ( BDI ) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a serious iatrogenic surgical complication. BDI most often occurs as a result of misidentification of the anatomy; however, clinical evidence on its precise mechanism and surgeons’ perceptions is scarce. Surgeons from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the USA, etc. ( n = 614) participated in a questionnaire regarding their BDI experience and near‐misses; and perceptions on landmarks, intraoperative findings, and surgical techniques. Respondents voted for a Delphi process and graded each item on a five‐point scale. The consensus was built when ≥80% of overall responses were 4 or 5. Response rates for the first‐ and second‐round Delphi were 60.6% and 74.9%, respectively. Misidentification of local anatomy accounted for 76.2% of BDI . Final consensus was reached on: (1) Effective retraction of the gallbladder, (2) Always obtaining critical view of safety, and (3) Avoiding excessive use of electrocautery/clipping as vital procedures; and (4) Calot's triangle area and (5) Critical view of safety as important landmarks. For (6) Impacted gallstone and (7) Severe fibrosis/scarring in Calot's triangle, bail‐out procedures may be indicated. A consensus was reached among expert surgeons on relevant landmarks and intraoperative findings and appropriate surgical techniques to avoid BDI .