Boggi, Ugo

Abstract Background Some centres advocate preoperative radiotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer and arterial involvement despite a lack of Level 1 evidence on survival benefit. Although it has been suggested that preoperative radiotherapy may increase the risk of postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and morbidity, evidence is again lacking. This study investigated the association between preoperative radiotherapy and both PPH and major morbidity following arterial divestment/resection during pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection after chemotherapy. Methods Consecutive patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and > 180° arterial involvement who were treated with preoperative chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy followed by pancreatic resection with arterial divestment/resection were included in the study. Logistic regression analyses including propensity score-based overlap weighting were performed to investigate associations between radiotherapy and in-hospital PPH grade B/C and major morbidity, expressed as adjusted risk differences (aRDs). Results Overall, 246 patients undergoing pancreatic resection with arterial resection (169, 69%) or divestment (77, 31%) were included. Radiotherapy was not associated with PPH (aRD 6%; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) −3 to 14), regardless of arterial divestment (aRD 3%; 95% c.i. −5 to 11) or arterial resection (aRD 12%; 95% c.i. 1 to 23; Pinteraction = 0.189). Radiotherapy was associated with a 14% (95% c.i. 2 to 25) higher risk of major morbidity, especially after arterial resection (aRD 27%; 95% c.i. 11 to 43) compared with arterial divestment (aRD −12%; 95% c.i. −35 to 11; Pinteraction = 0.006) and after external beam radiotherapy (aRD 21%; 95% c.i. 8 to 32) compared with stereotactic body radiotherapy (aRD −12%; 95% c.i. −27 to 6; Pinteraction = 0.0001). Ninety-day mortality was increased, albeit not significantly, after preoperative radiotherapy (10 (8%) versus 3 (3%) deaths with versus without preoperative radiotherapy, respectively; P = 0.067). Conclusions Radiotherapy before resection of pancreatic cancer with > 180° arterial involvement was associated with an increased risk of postoperative major morbidity when arterial resection, but not arterial divestment, was performed. This risk should be taken into account when considering preoperative radiotherapy in patients who may require arterial resection.

Objective: To establish international benchmark values for relevant outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Summary Background Data: For safe adoption of surgical innovation, robust quality control is essential. Benchmarking is a validated tool for assessing surgical performance. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmark values for robotic Whipple as top priority. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple between 2020-2023 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Reference centers were required to perform ≥15 cases/year, be scientifically active in the field, and maintain a prospective database. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Benchmarks were established for 13 outcome parameters. Result: The benchmark cohort comprised 418 patients from 12 centers across four continents. Benchmark values were: conversion rate ≤4.3%, transfusion rate ≤2.1%, 6-month mortality ≤2.2%, major complications ≤23.2%, and CCI® ≤20.9. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) and hemorrhage (grade B/C) rates were ≤23.6% and ≤12.7%, respectively. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=123), the benchmark for lymph node yield was ≥20. Higher surgical difficulty was associated with increased overall postoperative morbidity (R 2 =0.38, P =0.019), higher center caseload with reduced pancreas-specific complications (R 2 =0.28, P =0.044). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4 mm (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.82), anticoagulation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99), and indication other than PDAC (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.68, 3.27). Conclusions: This study establishes the first international benchmarks for robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic outcomes and morbidity comparable to open surgery with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

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.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

AbstractBackgroundSurgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy‐based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).MethodsTwenty‐five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsFour clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.ConclusionsThe expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

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.