Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey

Tackling challenges in rare diseases: The ISGACA approach on non-pancreatic cancers in the periampullary region

OBJECTIVE

Rare but aggressive cancer types like non-pancreatic periampullary cancers pose unique challenges for cancer research due to their low incidence rates and lack of consensus on optimal treatment strategies, therefore necessitating a collaborative approach. The International Study Group on non-pancreatic peri-Ampullary CAncer (ISGACA) aimed to build a collaborative initiative to pool expertise, funding opportunities, and data from over 60 medical centers, in order to improve outcomes for underrepresented patients with rare cancers.

METHODS

The ISGACA approach predefined a stepwise approach including a research scope, establishing a dedicated steering committee, creating a recognizable brand, identifying research gaps, following a well-defined timeline, ensuring robust data collection, addressing legal and ethical considerations, securing financial resources, investing in research ethics training and statistical expertise, raising awareness, creating uniformity, and initiating prospective studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 medical centers joined the ISGACA consortium (41 in Europe, 15 in North-America, three in Asia, one in Australia). The database includes 4309 patients. Nine publications and several ongoing studies which in turn allowed for a successful application of research grants. Subsequently, an international consensus meeting established uniform definitions and classifications, and one prospective multicenter international clinical trial has been initiated.

CONCLUSION

By sharing knowledge, expertise, and clinical data, the ISGACA approach has not only gathered sufficient evidence to secure grants and ethical approvals for prospective studies, but also demonstrates options for standardizing patient care and improving outcomes for patients with rare cancers. The ISGACA approach offers a detailed methodology for initiating research on rare cancers and could serve as a replicable model for future research initiatives.

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.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Peri-firing compression in prevention of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and a cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) occurs in 20%-40% of patients and remains a leading cause of morbidity and increased healthcare cost in this patient group. Recently, several studies suggested decreased risk of CR-POPF with the use of peri-firing compression (PFC) technique. The aim of this report was to conduct a systematic review to get an overview of the current knowledge on the use of PFC in DP. In addition, our experience with PFC was presented.

METHODS

The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Also, 19 patients undergoing DP with the use of PFC at Oslo University Hospital were studied. The primary endpoint was incidence of CR-POPF.

RESULTS

Seven articles reporting a total of 771 patients were ultimately included in the systematic review. Only two of these were case-control studies examining outcomes in patients with and without PFC, while the rest were case series. These were heterogeneous in terms of staplers used, cartridge selection policy, and PFC technique. Both case-control studies reported significantly reduced CR- POPF incidence with PFC. Eight (21%) of our patients developed CR-POPF after DP with PFC. Only one patient developed CR-POPF among those with pancreatic transection site thickness ⩽1.5 cm.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on potential benefits of PFC in DP is limited in quantity and quality. Our findings suggest that the use of PFC does not lead to reduction in the incidence of CR-POPF. Yet, there might be a benefit from PFC when dealing with a thin pancreas.

International survey on opinions and use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: 5-year follow up

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey.

RESULTS

Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: a matched analysis using ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is gaining popularity due to improved perioperative outcomes over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of MIDP and ODP using patients within a nationwide cohort.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (2014-2018) was used to evaluate incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as well as 30-day composite major morbidity for patients undergoing MIDP vs. ODP. Matching was performed with a Mahalanobis-distance model for demographic characteristics, preoperative risk factors, and benign versus malignant pathology. Outcomes were assessed via weighted multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 3940 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (1978 MIDP, 1962 ODP). After matching, 2985 patients were included (1978 MIDP, 1007 ODP). The rates of major morbidity (8.65% MIDP vs. 9.76% ODP, p = 0.37) were similar between groups. The MIDP group was found to have significantly decreased length of stay (5.6 vs. 7 days, p ≤ 0.001), but greater rates (12.54% MIDP vs. 9.35% ODP, p = 0.02) of post-operative fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

When matched for baseline patient characteristics, MIDP was associated with shorter length of hospitalization with similar rates of morbidity compared to ODP. However, MIDP was associated with significantly increased rates of POPF. Further studies are needed to investigate this difference in POPF rate, and determine how to optimize MIDP surgical technique to reduce this risk.

Framework for Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: An International Delphi Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Previous reports suggest that structured training in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) can ensure a safe implementation into standard practice. Although some training programs have been constructed, worldwide consensus on fundamental items of these training programs is lacking. This study aimed to determine items for a structured MIPS training program using the Delphi consensus methodology.

STUDY DESIGN

The study process consisted of 2 Delphi rounds among international experts in MIPS, identified by a literature review. The study committee developed a list of items for 3 key domains of MIPS training: (1) framework, (2) centers and surgeons eligible for training, and (3) surgeons eligible as proctor. The experts rated these items on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). A Cronbach's α of 0.70 or greater was defined as the cut-off value to achieve consensus. Each item that achieved 80% or greater of expert votes was considered as fundamental for a training program in MIPS.

RESULTS

Both Delphi study rounds were completed by all invited experts in MIPS, with a median experience of 20 years in MIPS. Experts included surgeons from 31 cities in 13 countries across 4 continents. Consensus was reached on 38 fundamental items for the framework of training (16 of 35 items, Cronbach's α = 0.72), centers and surgeons eligible for training (19 of 30 items, Cronbach's α = 0.87), and surgeons eligible as proctor (3 of 10 items, Cronbach's α = 0.89). Center eligibility for MIPS included a minimum annual volume of 10 distal pancreatectomies and 50 pancreatoduodenectomies.

CONCLUSION

Consensus among worldwide experts in MIPS was reached on fundamental items for the framework of training and criteria for participating surgeons and centers. These items act as a guideline and intend to improve training, proctoring, and safe worldwide dissemination of MIPS.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.