Improved Pancreatic Cancer Detection and Localization on CT Scans: A Computer-Aided Detection Model Utilizing Secondary Features.

The early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is essential for optimal treatment of pancreatic cancer patients. We propose a tumor detection framework to improve the detection of pancreatic head tumors on CT scans. In this retrospective research study, CT images of 99 patients with pancreatic head cancer and 98 control cases from the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven were collected. A multi-stage 3D U-Net-based approach was used for PDAC detection including clinically significant secondary features such as pancreatic duct and common bile duct dilation. The developed algorithm was evaluated using a local test set comprising 59 CT scans. The model was externally validated in 28 pancreatic cancer cases of a publicly available medical decathlon dataset. The tumor detection framework achieved a sensitivity of 0.97 and a specificity of 1.00, with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.99, in detecting pancreatic head cancer in the local test set. In the external test set, we obtained similar results, with a sensitivity of 1.00. The model provided the tumor location with acceptable accuracy obtaining a DICE Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.37. This study shows that a tumor detection framework utilizing CT scans and secondary signs of pancreatic cancer can detect pancreatic tumors with high accuracy.

The Five Periampullary Cancers, not Just Different Siblings but Different Families: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer arising in the periampullary region can be anatomically classified in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), and ampullary carcinoma. Based on histopathology, ampullary carcinoma is currently subdivided in intestinal (AmpIT), pancreatobiliary (AmpPB), and mixed subtypes. Despite close anatomical resemblance, it is unclear how ampullary subtypes relate to the remaining periampullary cancers in tumor characteristics and behavior. METHODS: This international cohort study included patients after curative intent resection for periampullary cancer retrieved from 44 centers (from Europe, United States, Asia, Australia, and Canada) between 2010 and 2021. Preoperative CA19-9, pathology outcomes and 8-year overall survival were compared between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, dCCA, and PDAC. RESULTS: Overall, 3809 patients were analyzed, including 348 DAC, 774 AmpIT, 848 AmpPB, 1,036 dCCA, and 803 PDAC. The highest 8-year overall survival was found in patients with AmpIT and DAC (49.8% and 47.9%), followed by AmpPB (34.9%, P < 0.001), dCCA (26.4%, P = 0.020), and finally PDAC (12.9%, P < 0.001). A better survival was correlated with lower CA19-9 levels but not with tumor size, as DAC lesions showed the largest size. CONCLUSIONS: Despite close anatomic relations of the five periampullary cancers, this study revealed differences in preoperative blood markers, pathology, and long-term survival. More tumor characteristics are shared between DAC and AmpIT and between AmpPB and dCCA than between the two ampullary subtypes. Instead of using collective definitions for "periampullary cancers" or anatomical classification, this study emphasizes the importance of individual evaluation of each histopathological subtype with the ampullary subtypes as individual entities in future studies.

The road to tailored adjuvant chemotherapy for all four non-pancreatic periampullary cancers: An international multimethod cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite differences in tumour behaviour and characteristics between duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), the intestinal (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary (AmpPB) subtype of ampullary adenocarcinoma and distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) on these cancers, as well as the optimal ACT regimen, has not been comprehensively assessed. This study aims to assess the influence of tailored ACT on DAC, dCCA, AmpIT, and AmpPB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinoma were identified and collected from 36 tertiary centres between 2010 - 2021. Per non-pancreatic periampullary tumour type, the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy and the main relevant regimens of adjuvant chemotherapy were compared. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included a total of 2866 patients with DAC (n = 330), AmpIT (n = 765), AmpPB (n = 819), and dCCA (n = 952). Among them, 1329 received ACT, and 1537 did not. ACT was associated with significant improvement in OS for AmpPB (P = 0.004) and dCCA (P < 0.001). Moreover, for patients with dCCA, capecitabine mono ACT provided the greatest OS benefit compared to gemcitabine (P = 0.004) and gemcitabine - cisplatin (P = 0.001). For patients with AmpPB, no superior ACT regime was found (P > 0.226). ACT was not associated with improved OS for DAC and AmpIT (P = 0.113 and P = 0.445, respectively). DISCUSSION: Patients with resected AmpPB and dCCA appear to benefit from ACT. While the optimal ACT for AmpPB remains undetermined, it appears that dCCA shows the most favourable response to capecitabine monotherapy. Tailored adjuvant treatments are essential for enhancing prognosis across all four non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Different Periampullary Types and Subtypes Leading to Different Perioperative Outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy: Reality and Not a Myth; An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

This international multicenter cohort study included 30 centers. Patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC), intestinal-type (AmpIT) and pancreatobiliary-type (AmpPB) ampullary adenocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b≥), clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 3622 patients were included in the study (370 DAC, 811 AmpIT, 895 AmpPB, 1083 dCCA, and 463 PDAC). Mortality rates were comparable between DAC, AmpIT, AmpPB, and dCCA (ranging from 3.7% to 5.9%), while lower for PDAC (1.5%, p = 0.013). Major morbidity rate was the lowest in PDAC (4.4%) and the highest for DAC (19.9%, p < 0.001). The highest rates of CR-POPF were observed in DAC (27.3%), AmpIT (25.5%), and dCCA (27.6%), which were significantly higher compared to AmpPB (18.5%, p = 0.001) and PDAC (8.3%, p < 0.001). The shortest LOS was found in PDAC (11 d vs. 14-15 d, p < 0.001). Discussion: In conclusion, this study shows significant variations in perioperative mortality, post-operative complications, and hospital stay among different periampullary cancers, and between the ampullary subtypes. Further research should assess the biological characteristics and tissue reactions associated with each type of periampullary cancer, including subtypes, in order to improve patient management and personalized treatment.

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.

Prognostic value of Mandard score and nodal status for recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of pathological tumour response (tumour regression grade, TRG) and a novel scoring system, combining both TRG and nodal status (TRG-ypN score; TRG1-ypN0, TRG>1-ypN0, TRG1-ypN+ and TRG>1-ypN+), with recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This Dutch nationwide cohort study included patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy for distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2016. The primary endpoint was the association of Mandard score and TRG-ypN score with recurrence patterns (rate, location, and time to recurrence). The secondary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: Among 2746 inclusions, recurrence rates increased with higher Mandard scores (TRG1 30.6%, TRG2 44.9%, TRG3 52.9%, TRG4 61.4%, TRG5 58.2%; P < 0.001). Among patients with recurrent disease, the distribution (locoregional versus distant) was the same for the different TRG groups. Patients with TRG1 developed more brain recurrences (17.7 versus 9.8%; P = 0.001) and had a longer mean overall survival (44 versus 35 months; P < 0.001) than those with TRG>1. The TRG>1-ypN+ group had the highest recurrence rate (64.9%) and worst overall survival (mean 27 months). Compared with the TRG>1-ypN0 group, patients with TRG1-ypN+ had a higher risk of recurrence (51.9 versus 39.6%; P < 0.001) and worse mean overall survival (33 versus 41 months; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Improved tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy was associated with lower recurrence rates and higher overall survival rates. Among patients with recurrent disease, TRG1 was associated with a higher incidence of brain recurrence than TRG>1. Residual nodal disease influenced prognosis more negatively than residual disease at the primary tumour site.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. RESULTS: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP. CONCLUSION: A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

Evolution in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Through National Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of the LOGICA RCT (randomized controlled trial) upon the practice and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy within the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Following RCTs the dissemination of complex interventions has been poorly studied. The LOGICA RCT included 10 Dutch centers and compared laparoscopic to open gastrectomy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) on all gastrectomies performed in the Netherlands (2012-2021), and the LOGICA RCT from 2015 to 2018. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy upon clinical outcomes before, during, and after the LOGICA RCT. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients from the LOGICA RCT (105 open vs 106 laparoscopic) and 4131 patients from the DUCA data set (1884 open vs 2247 laparoscopic) were included. In 2012, laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 6% of patients, increasing to 82% in 2021. No significant effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on postoperative clinical outcomes was observed within the LOGICA RCT. Nationally within DUCA, a shift toward a beneficial effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy upon complications was observed, reaching a significant reduction in overall [adjusted odds ratio (aOR):0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82], severe (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90) and cardiac complications (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89) after the LOGICA trial. CONCLUSIONS: The wider benefits of the LOGICA trial included the safe dissemination of laparoscopic gastrectomy across the Netherlands. The robust surgical quality assurance program in the design of the LOGICA RCT was crucial to facilitate the national dissemination of the technique following the trial and reducing potential patient harm during surgeons learning curve.

Peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer in a nationwide cohort: Incidence, treatment and survival.

The aims of this study were to investigate incidence, risk factors and treatment of synchronous or metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM) from gastric cancer and to estimate survival of these patients using population-based data. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer in 2015 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The incidence of synchronous and metachronous PM were calculated. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the occurrence of PM. Treatment and survival were compared between patients with synchronous and metachronous PM. Of 2206 patients with gastric cancer, 741 (34%) were diagnosed with PM. Of these, 498 (23%) had synchronous PM. The cumulative incidence of metachronous PM in patients who underwent potentially curative treatment (n = 675) was 22.8% at 3 years. A factor associated with synchronous and metachronous PM was diffuse type histology. Patients diagnosed with synchronous PM more often received systemic treatment than patients with metachronous PM (35% vs 18%, respectively, P < .001). Median overall survival was comparable between synchronous and metachronous PM (3.2 vs 2.3 months, respectively, P = .731). Approximately one third of all patients with gastric cancer are diagnosed with PM, either at primary diagnosis or during 3-year follow-up after potentially curative treatment. Patients with metachronous PM less often received systemic treatment than those with synchronous PM but survival was comparable between both groups. Future trials are warranted to detect gastric cancer at an earlier stage and to examine strategies that lower the risk of peritoneal dissemination. Also, specific treatment options for patients with gastric PM should be further investigated.

The impact of hospital experience in bariatric surgery on short-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically challenging procedure with a substantial learning curve. Composite volume of upper gastrointestinal (upper GI) procedures for cancer has been previously linked to postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to investigate an association between hospital experience in bariatric surgery and short-term outcomes in MIE. METHOD: Data on esophagectomy patients between 2016 and 2020 were collected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit, a mandatory nationwide registry. Hospitals were categorized as bariatric or non-bariatric. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term postoperative outcomes, adjusting for case mix. RESULTS: Of 3371 patients undergoing esophagectomy in sixteen hospitals, 2450 (72.7%) underwent MIE. Bariatric hospitals (N = 6) accounted for 1057 (43.1%) MIE. Annual volume of bariatric procedures was median 523 and esophagectomies 42. In non-bariatric hospitals, volume of esophagectomies was median 52 (P = 0.145). Overall postoperative complication rate was lower in bariatric hospitals (59.2% vs. 65.9%, P < 0.001). Bariatric hospitals were associated with a reduced risk of overall complications (aOR 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.92]), length of hospital (aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.65-0.95]), and ICU stay (aOR 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]) after MIE. Surgical radicality (R0) did not differ. Lymph node yield (≥ 15) was lower in bariatric hospitals (90.0% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001). Over the years, several short-term outcomes improved in bariatric hospitals compared to non-bariatric hospitals. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide analysis, there was an association between bariatric hospitals and improved short-term outcomes after MIE. Characteristics of bariatric hospitals that could explain this phenomenon and whether this translates to other upper GI procedures may be warranted to identify.

A Video-Based Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tool for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Importance: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex procedure with substantial learning curves. In other complex minimally invasive procedures, suboptimal surgical performance has convincingly been associated with less favorable patient outcomes as assessed by peer review of the surgical procedure. Objective: To develop and validate a procedure-specific competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIE. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international quality improvement study, a procedure-specific MIE-CAT was developed and validated. The MIE-CAT contains 8 procedural phases, and 4 quality components per phase are scored with a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4. For evaluation of the MIE-CAT, intraoperative MIE videos performed by a single surgical team in the Esophageal Center East Netherlands were peer reviewed by 18 independent international MIE experts (with more than 120 MIEs performed). Each video was assessed by 2 or 3 blinded experts to evaluate feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity. MIE-CAT version 2 was composed with refined content aimed at improving interrater reliability. A total of 32 full-length MIE videos from patients who underwent MIE between 2011 and 2020 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to January 2023. Exposure: Performance assessment of transthoracic MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility, content validity, interrater and intrarater reliability, and construct validity, including correlations with both experience of the surgical team and clinical parameters, of the developed MIE-CAT. Results: Experts found the MIE-CAT easy to understand and easy to use to grade surgical performance. The MIE-CAT demonstrated good intrarater reliability (range of intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.807 [95% CI, 0.656 to 0.892] for quality component score to 0.898 [95% CI, 0.846 to 0.932] for phase score). Interrater reliability was moderate (range of ICCs, 0.536 [95% CI, -0.220 to 0.994] for total MIE-CAT score to 0.705 [95% CI, 0.473 to 0.846] for quality component score), and most discrepancies originated in the lymphadenectomy phases. Hypothesis testing for construct validity showed more than 75% of hypotheses correct: MIE-CAT performance scores correlated with experience of the surgical team (r = 0.288 to 0.622), blood loss (r = -0.034 to -0.545), operative time (r = -0.309 to -0.611), intraoperative complications (r = -0.052 to -0.319), and severe postoperative complications (r = -0.207 to -0.395). MIE-CAT version 2 increased usability. Interrater reliability improved but remained moderate (range of ICCs, 0.666 to 0.743), and most discrepancies between raters remained in the lymphadenectomy phases. Conclusions and Relevance: The MIE-CAT was developed and its feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity were demonstrated. By providing insight into surgical performance of MIE, the MIE-CAT might be used for clinical, training, and research purposes.

Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS).

PURPOSE: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30-50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68-0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSION: The current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial.

The Comprehensive Complication Index versus Clavien-Dindo grading after laparoscopic and open D2-gastrectomy in the multicenter randomized LOGICA-trial.

BACKGROUND: Complications can be classified using the most-severe Clavien-Dindo-Classification (CDC) per patient or the total complication burden per patient expressed in the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). This study determined the additional value of CCI to CDC in examining the impact of complications after gastric cancer surgery. METHODS: The CCI and CDC were determined in the multicenter randomized LOGICA-trial comparing laparoscopic versus open D2-gastrectomy for cancer (cT1-4aN0-3M0). Differences in median CCI between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were compared for overall postoperative complications and cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infectious, pulmonary, and other complications. CCI and CDC were correlated to hospitalization, ICU-stay and reoperations using Spearman's rho-test and compared with standard Fisher's z-transformation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, 211 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 106) or open (n = 105) D2-gastrectomy, and 157 (74%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median CCI was comparable between laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy regarding overall complications (CCI 0 [IQR 0-23.5] versus 0 [IQR 0-22.6]; p = 0.755) and subgroups of complications (p > 0.05). Both CCI and CDC showed moderate positive correlations for hospitalization (rs = 0.646 versus rs = 0.628; p = 0.001, difference clinically irrelevant), and reoperations (rs = 0.590 versus rs = 0.599; p = 0.070), and weak correlations for ICU-stay (rs = 0.446 versus rs = 0.440; p = 0.189). CONCLUSIONS: The CCI is a composite scoring system based on the CDC and reflects a subjective interpretation of complication burden from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, following abdominal surgery other than gastrectomy. Implementing CCI showed no clinically relevant benefit and caused additional workload compared to CDC for assessing complication burden. Therefore, using the CCI alongside the CDC after gastric cancer surgery is not recommended.