Surgery Improves Survival After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Borderline and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has become part of the multimodality treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is currently uncertain which are the preferable NAT regimens, who benefits from surgery, and whether more aggressive surgical strategy is motivated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with BRPC/LAPC discussed and planned for NAT at multidisciplinary conference at Karolinska University Hospital from 2010 to 2017. RESULTS: Of 233 patients eligible, 168 (72%) received NAT and were reevaluated for possibility of resection. A total of 156 (67%) patients (mean 64 yrs, 53% male) had pancreatic adenocarcinoma, comprising the study group for survival analysis. LAPC was diagnosed in 132 patients (85%), BRPC in 22 (14%), and resectable tumor in 2 (1.3%). Fifty patients (40.3%) received full-dose NAT. Only 54 (34.6%) had FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival among resected patients was similar for BRPC and LAPC (median survival 15.0 vs 14.5 mo, P = 0.4; and 31.9 vs 21.8 mo, P = 0.7, respectively). Resected patients had better survival than nonresected, irrespective of the type or whether full-dose NAT was given (median survival 22.4 vs 12.7 mo; 1-, 3-, and 5-yr survival: 86.4%, 38.9%, 26.9% vs 52.2%, 1.5%, 0%, respectively (P < 0001). For all preoperative values of Ca 19-9, surgical resection had positive impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS: All patients with BRPC/LAPC who do not progress during NAT should be considered for surgical resection, irrespective of the type or dose of NAT given. Higher levels of Ca 19-9 should not be considered an absolute contraindication for resection.

Pulse oximetric assessment of anatomical vascular contribution to tissue perfusion in the gastric conduit.

BACKGROUND: Tubularized stomach is a common substitute used after oesophageal resection. The risk for gastric conduit ischemia, as well as the mechanisms and dynamics for the occurrence of deficient tissue perfusion during the critical construction of a gastric tube, is poorly understood. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients that underwent oesophagectomy were studied with transmural pulse oximetry of different parts of the stomach, and at predefined preparatory steps during the construction of the gastric conduit. RESULTS: After ligation of the left gastric artery (LGA), a reduction to 83.5% in tissue saturation was observed. Three patients (10.3%) had a sustained saturation despite ligation at this point. During final preparation of the gastric tube, and after stapling of the minor curvature, saturation fell to 76.5%. Saturation increased significantly to 80.0% 2 h after the stapling, just before construction of the anastomosis (P = 0.021). There was no association between the level of oxygen saturation and the risk of anastomotic dehiscence. CONCLUSION: During gastric tube construction for oesophageal replacement, conduit perfusion, measured as oxygen saturation with pulse oximetry, decreases significantly. The main cause of this reduction seems to be ligation of the LGA and the final stapling of the gastric tube. Future studies are needed to establish the clinical implications of this finding.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing partial stomach partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for malignant gastroduodenal obstruction.

PURPOSE: Partial stomach partitioning gastrojejunostomy (PSPGJ) was introduced as a palliative treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGO) caused by unresectable gastric or periampullary cancers and suggested to offer advantages over conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ) in reducing the risk for delayed gastric emptying (DGE). However, insufficient evidence is available to allow a comprehensive view of the true value of PSPGJ. The present study aimed to show the advantages of PSPGJ in terms of alleviating DGE and improving postoperative recovery compared to CGJ. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed, and studies comparing DGE and other perioperative and postoperative data including operation time, blood loss, total postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, postoperative period before oral intake, and/or hospital stay between PSPGJ and CGJ for MGO were incorporated. Risk ratio (RR) for binary variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables were calculated, and meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Seven studies containing 207 patients were included. The risk for DGE was significantly lower after PSPGJ (RR 0.32; 95%CI 0.17 to 0.60; P < 0.001). PSPGJ significantly reduced the postoperative hospital stay (WMD -6.1 days; 95%CI -8.9 to -3.3 days; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the other variables between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: PSPGJ for MGO seems to offer significant advantages in terms of alleviating DGE and improving postoperative recovery compared to CGJ.

Treatment of esophageal anastomotic leakage with self-expanding metal stents: analysis of risk factors for treatment failure.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: The endoscopic placement of self-expandable metallic esophageal stents (SEMS) has become the preferred primary treatment for esophageal anastomotic leakage in many institutions. The aim of this study was to investigate possible risk factors for failure of SEMS-based therapy in patients with esophageal anastomotic leakage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Beginning in 2003, all patients with an esophageal leak were initially approached and assessed for temporary closure with a SEMS. Until 2014, all patients at the Karolinska University Hospital with a leak from an esophagogastric or esophagojejunal anastomosis were identified. Data regarding the characteristics of the patients and leaks and the treatment outcomes were compiled. Failure of the SEMS treatment strategy was defined as death due to the leak or a major change in management strategy. The risk factors for treatment failure were analyzed with simple and multivariable logistic regression statistics. RESULTS: A total of 447 patients with an esophagogastric or esophagojejunal anastomosis were identified. Of these patients, 80 (18 %) had an anastomotic leak, of whom 46 (58 %) received a stent as first-line treatment. In 29 of these 46 patients, the leak healed without any major change in treatment strategy. Continuous leakage after the application of a stent, decreased physical performance preoperatively, and concomitant esophagotracheal fistula were identified as independent risk factors for failure with multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Stent treatment for esophageal anastomotic leakage is successful in the majority of cases. Continuous leakage after initial stent insertion, decreased physical performance preoperatively, and the development of an esophagotracheal fistula decrease the probability of successful treatment.

Predictors for failure of stent treatment for benign esophageal perforations - a single center 10-year experience.

AIM: To investigate possible predictors for failed self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) therapy in consecutive patients with benign esophageal perforation-rupture (EPR). METHODS: All patients between 2003-2013 treated for EPR at the Karolinska University Hospital, a tertiary referral center, were studied with regard to initial management with SEMS. Patients with malignancy as an underlying cause and those with anastomotic leakages were excluded. Sealing of the perforation with a covered SEMS was the primary strategy whenever feasible. Stent therapy failure was defined as a radical change of treatment strategy due to uncontrolled mediastinitis, which in this setting consisted of emergency esophagectomy with end-esophagostomy or death as a consequence of the perforation and subsequent uncontrolled sepsis. Patient and lesion characteristics were analyzed and are presented as median and interquartile range. Possible predictors for failed stent therapy were analyzed with uni-variate logistic regression, while variables with P < 0.2 were further analyzed with multi-variate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the total number of 48 patients presenting with EPR, 40 patients (83.3%) were treated with SEMS at the time of admission, with an intention to heal the perforation. Twenty-three patients had Boerhaave's syndrome (58%), 16 had an iatrogenic perforation (40%) and 1 had external trauma to the esophagus (3%). The total in-hospital mortality, including the cases that had other initial treatments (n = 8), was 10.4% and 7.5% among those who were subjected to the SEMS-based strategy. In 33 of the 40 patients (82.5%) who were treated with stent, the EPR healed without further change in treatment strategy. Patients classified as treatment success received a SEMS at a median time of 1 (1-1) d after the actual EPR, compared to 3 (1-10) d among those where the initial treatment failed, P = 0.039 in uni-variate analysis and P = 0.052 in multi-variate analysis. No other significant factors emerged, indicating an increased risk for failure. Six of 7 patients, where stent treatment of the defect failed, underwent an emergency esophagectomy with end esophagostomy and one patient died. CONCLUSION: SEMS as an upfront therapeutic strategy seems to be a successful concept, when applied to an unselected group of patients with EPR.