Heterogeneity of management practices surrounding operable gallbladder cancer - results of the OMEGA-S international HPB surgical survey

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is an aggressive, uncommon malignancy, with variation in operative approaches adopted across centres and few large-scale studies to guide practice. We aimed to identify the extent of heterogeneity in GBC internationally to better inform the need for future multicentre studies.

METHODS

A 34-question online survey was disseminated to members of the European-African Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (EAHPBA), American Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (AHPBA) and Asia-Pacific Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (A-PHPBA) regarding practices around diagnostic workup, operative approach, utilization of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies and surveillance strategies.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three surgeons responded from 51 countries. High liver resection volume units (>50 resections/year) organised HPB multidisciplinary team discussion of GBCs more commonly than those with low volumes (p < 0.0001). Management practices exhibited areas of heterogeneity, particularly around operative extent. Contrary to consensus guidelines, anatomical liver resections were favoured over non-anatomical resections for T3 tumours and above, lymphadenectomy extent was lower than recommended, and a minority of respondents still routinely excised the common bile duct or port sites.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest some similarities in the management of GBC internationally, but also specific areas of practice which differed from published guidelines. Transcontinental collaborative studies on GBC are necessary to establish evidence-based practice to minimise variation and optimise outcomes.

External validation of three nomograms predicting survival using an international cohort of patients with resected pancreatic head ductal adenocarcinoma

Objective

Lymph node ratio (LNR, positive lymph nodes/collected lymph nodes during surgery) was identified as an important prognostic factor of survival in resected pancreatic cancer. Several nomograms based on LNR were recently proposed to predict survival after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The present study aimed to externally validate 3 published nomograms using an international cohort.

Methods

Consecutive patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head who underwent PD without neoadjuvant treatment from 6 tertiary centers in Europe and the USA were retrospectively collected from 2000 to 2017. Patients with metastases at diagnosis, R2 resection, missing data regarding LNR, and who died within 90 postoperative days were excluded. The 3 selected nomograms were the updated Amsterdam nomogram (including LNR, adjuvant therapy, margin status, and tumor grade), the nomogram by Pu et al. (including LNR, age, tumor grade, and T stage) and the nomogram by Li et al. (including LNR, age, tumor location, grade, size, and TNM stage). Overall survivals (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. For the validation, calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test), discrimination capacity (ROC curves for 3-year OS), and clinical utility (sensitivity and specificity at the value of Youden index) were assessed.

Results

After exclusion of 95 patients with metastases, R2 resection, and who died within 90 postoperative days, 1167 patients were included. Median OS of the entire cohort was 23 months (95% confidence interval: 21-24).

For the 3 nomograms, Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant diminution of OS with increasing scores (p &lt; 0.01 for the 3 nomograms). All nomograms showed good calibration (non significant Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests). For the updated Amsterdam nomogram, the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for 3-year OS was 0.66. Sensitivity and specificity were 73% and 50%. Regarding the nomogram by Pu et al., the AUROC was 0.67. Sensitivity and specificity were 65% and 60%. For the nomogram by Li et al., the AUROC was 0.67, while sensitivity and specificity were 56% and 71%.

Conclusion

The 3 selected nomograms were validated using an external international cohort and displayed interesting and comparable predictive values. Those nomograms may be used in clinical practice to estimate survival after PD for ductal adenocarcinoma.

Evaluation of the MDACC clinical classification system for pancreatic cancer patients in an European multicenter cohort

BACKGROUND

The MDACC group recommends to extend the current borderline classification for pancreatic cancer into three groups: type A patients with resectable/borderline tumor anatomy, type B with resectable/borderline resectable tumor anatomy and clinical findings suspicious for extrapancreatic disease and type C with borderline resectable and marginal performance status/severe pre-existing comorbidity profile or age>80. This study intents to evaluate the proposed borderline classification system in a multicenter patient cohort without neoadjuvant treatment.

METHODS

Evaluation was based on a multicenter database of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2005 to 2016 (n = 1020). Complications were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. χ²-test, Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression hazard model were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients (55.1%) were assigned as type A patients, followed by type C (35.8%) and type B patients (9.1%). Neither the complication rate, nor the mortality rate revealed a correlation to any subgroup. Type B patients had a significant worse progression free (p < 0.001) and overall survival (p = 0.005). Type B classification was identified as an independent prognostic marker for progression free survival (p = 0.005, HR 1.47).

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of the proposed classification in a cohort without neoadjuvant treatment did not justify an additional medical borderline subgroup. A new subgroup based on prognostic borderline patients might be the main target group for neoadjuvant protocols in future.

Risk score to predict biliary leakage after elective liver resection

Background

Biliary leakage remains a major cause of morbidity after liver resection. Previous prognostic studies of posthepatectomy biliary leakage (PHBL) lacked power, population homogeneity, and model validation. The present study aimed to develop a risk score for predicting severe PHBL.

Methods

In this multicentre observational study, patients who underwent liver resection without hepaticojejunostomy in one of nine tertiary centres between 2012 and 2015 were randomly assigned to a development or validation cohort in a 2 : 1 ratio. A model predicting severe PHBL (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C) was developed and further validated.

Results

A total of 2218 procedures were included. PHBL of any severity and severe PHBL occurred in 141 (6·4 per cent) and 92 (4·1 per cent) patients respectively. In the development cohort (1475 patients), multivariable analysis identified blood loss of at least 500 ml, liver remnant ischaemia time 45 min or more, anatomical resection including segment VIII, transection along the right aspect of the left intersectional plane, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as predictors of severe PHBL. A risk score (ranging from 0 to 5) was built using the development cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·85) and tested successfully in the validation cohort (AUROC 0·70, 0·60 to 0·80). A score of at least 3 predicted an increase in severe PHBL (19·4 versus 2·6 per cent in the development cohort, P &lt; 0·001; 15 versus 3·1 per cent in the validation cohort, P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

The present risk score reliably predicts severe PHBL. It represents a multi-institutionally validated prognostic tool that can be used to identify a subset of patients at high risk of severe PHBL after elective hepatectomy.

ERAS and pancreatic surgery: a review

Pancreatic surgery is still considered as a high-risk abdominal surgery. While the mortality rate is low, the morbidity remains high ranging from 30 to 60%. In 2012, the ERAS study group published the official recommendations to implement the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing PD. Non-randomized studies have shown that ERAS was safe and feasible. They reported a significantly shortened LOS with lower morbidity in ERAS group. However, the level of evidence remains low due to absence of randomized study and because of a substantial heterogeneity in the content of ERAS protocols. Future studies should be prospective, multicentric and designed with a structured implementation of standardized ERAS pathway.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection: Is It Really the Future?

The introduction and widespread application of minimally invasive surgery has been one of the most important innovations that radically changed the practice of surgery during the last few decades. The application to pancreatic surgery of minimally invasive approach has only recently emerged: both laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) can be competently performed. LDP and LPD are advocated to improved perioperative outcomes, including decreased blood loss, shorter length of stay, reduced postoperative pain and expedited time to functional recovery. However, the indication to minimally invasive approach for pancreatic surgery is often benign or low-grade malignant pathologies. In this review, we summarize the current data on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, focusing on indication, perioperative and oncological outcomes.