Citations

Objective: The ISGPS aimed to develop a universally accepted definition for PPAP for standardized reporting and outcome comparison. Background: : PPAP is an increasingly recognized complication after partial pancreatic resections, but its incidence and clinical impact, and even its existence are variable because an internationally accepted consensus definition and grading system are lacking. Methods: The ISGPS developed a consensus definition and grading of PPAP with its members after an evidence review and after a series of discussions and multiple revisions from April 2020 to May 2021. Results: We defined PPAP as an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreatic remnant beginning within the first 3 postoperative days after a partial pancreatic resection. The diagnosis requires (1) a sustained postoperative serum hyperamylasemia (POH) greater than the institutional upper limit of normal for at least the first 48 hours postoperatively, (2) associated with clinically relevant features, and (3) radiologic alterations consistent with PPAP. Three different PPAP grades were defined based on the clinical impact: (1) grade postoperative hyperamylasemia, biochemical changes only; (2) grade B, mild or moderate complications; and (3) grade C, severe life-threatening complications. Discussions: The present definition and grading scale of PPAP, based on biochemical, radiologic, and clinical criteria, are instrumental for a better understanding of PPAP and the spectrum of postoperative complications related to this emerging entity. The current terminology will serve as a reference point for standard assessment and lend itself to developing specific treatments and prevention strategies.

Objective: To investigate the role of intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) on development of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Background: Minimizing EBL has been shown to decrease transfusions and provide better perioperative outcomes in PD. EBL is also felt to be influential on CR-POPF development. Methods: This study consists of 5534 PDs from a 17-institution collaborative (2003–2018). EBL was progressively categorized (≤150mL; 151–400mL; 401–1,000 mL; > 1,000 mL). Impact of additive EBL was assessed using 20 3– factor fistula risk score (FRS) scenarios reflective of endogenous CR-POPF risk. Results: CR-POPF developed in 13.6% of patients (N = 753) and median EBL was 400 mL (interquartile range 250-600 mL). CR-POPF and Grade C POPF were associated with elevated EBL (median 350 vs 400 mL, P = 0.002; 372 vs 500 mL, P < 0.001, respectively). Progressive EBL cohorts displayed incremental CR-POPF rates (8.5%, 13.4%, 15.2%, 16.9%; P < 0.001). EBL >400mL was associated with increased CR-POPF occurrence in 13/20 endogenous risk scenarios. Moreover, 8 of 10 scenarios predicated on a soft gland demonstrated increased CR-POPF incidence. Hypothetical projections demonstrate significant reductions in CR-POPF can be obtained with 1–, 2–, and 3-point decreases in FRS points attributed to EBL risk (12.2%, 17.4%, and 20.0%; P < 0.001). This is especially pronounced in high-risk (FRS7–10) patients, who demonstrate up to a 31% reduction (P < 0.001). Surgeons in the lowest-quartile of median EBL demonstrated CR-POPF rates less than half those in the upper-quartile (7.9% vs 18.8%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: EBL independently contributes significant biological risk to CR-POPF. Substantial reductions in CR-POPF occurrence are projected and obtainable by minimizing EBL. Decreased individual surgeon EBL is associated with improvements in CR-POPF.

Objective: This study aims to present a full spectrum of individual patient presentations of pancreatic fistula risk, and to define the utility of mitigation strategies amongst some of the most prevalent, and vulnerable scenarios surgeons encounter. Background: The FRS has been utilized to identify technical strategies associated with reduced CR-POPF incidence across various risk strata. However, risk-stratification using the FRS has never been investigated with greater granularity. By deriving all possible combinations of FRS elements, individualized risk assessment could be utilized for precision medicine purposes. Methods: FRS profiles and outcomes of 5533 PDs were accrued from 17 international institutions (2003–2019). The FRS was used to derive 80 unique combinations of patient “scenarios.” Risk-matched analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni adjustment to identify scenarios with increased vulnerability for CR-POPF occurrence. Subsequently, these scenarios were analyzed using multivariable regression to explore optimal mitigation approaches. Results: The overall CR-POPF rate was 13.6%. All 80 possible scenarios were encountered, with the most frequent being scenario #1 (8.1%) – the only negligible-risk scenario (CR-POPF rate = 0.7%). The moderate-risk zone had the most scenarios (50), patients (N = 3246), CR-POPFs (65.2%), and greatest non-zero discrepancy in CR-POPF rates between scenarios (18-fold). In the risk-matched analysis, 2 scenarios (#59 and 60) displayed increased vulnerability for CR-POPF relative to the moderate-risk zone (both P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with CR-POPF in these scenarios: pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction [odds ratio (OR) 4.67], omission of drain placement (OR 5.51), and prophylactic octreotide (OR 3.09). When comparing the utilization of best practice strategies to patients who did not have these conjointly utilized, there was a significant decrease in CR-POPF (10.7% vs 35.5%, P < 0.001; OR 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.33). Conclusion: Through this data, a comprehensive fistula risk catalog has been created and the most clinically-impactful scenarios have been discerned. Focusing on individual scenarios provides a practical way to approach precision medicine, allowing for more directed and efficient management of CR-POPF.

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.

A small number of common susceptibility loci have been identified for pancreatic cancer, one of which is marked by rs401681 in the TERT–CLPTM1L gene region on chromosome 5p15.33. Because this region is characterized by low linkage disequilibrium, we sought to identify whether additional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be related to pancreatic cancer risk, independently of rs401681. We performed an in‐depth analysis of genetic variability of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) and the telomerase RNA component (TERC) genes, in 5,550 subjects with pancreatic cancer and 7,585 controls from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) and the PanScan consortia. We identified a significant association between a variant in TERT and pancreatic cancer risk (rs2853677, odds ratio = 0.85; 95% confidence interval = 0.80–0.90, p = 8.3 × 10−8). Additional analysis adjusting rs2853677 for rs401681 indicated that the two SNPs are independently associated with pancreatic cancer risk, as suggested by the low linkage disequilibrium between them (r2 = 0.07, D′ = 0.28). Three additional SNPs in TERT reached statistical significance after correction for multiple testing: rs2736100 (p = 3.0 × 10−5), rs4583925 (p = 4.0 × 10−5) and rs2735948 (p = 5.0 × 10−5). In conclusion, we confirmed that the TERT locus is associated with pancreatic cancer risk, possibly through several independent variants.

Background Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. Objective To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. Methods A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Results There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16 , BRCA 2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended. Conclusions Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.