Background This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BRPC) that would have worldwide ...acceptability. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established, high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Results The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC. Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis; in addition, a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS. Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings. Formal arterial resections are not recommended; however, in exceptional circumstances, individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocols. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection (tumor within 1 mm from the margin) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists. Standard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include: (1) serum levels of CA19-9, because CA19-9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series; and also (2) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response. Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospective trials at high-volume centers. Conclusion Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC. Basic definitions were identified, that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup. A consensus for each topic is given.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background Recent literature suggests that chyle leak may complicate up to 10% of pancreatic resections. Treatment depends on its severity, which may include chylous ascites. No international ...consensus definition or grading system of chyle leak currently is available. Methods The International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, an international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers, reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation. Results Chyle leak was defined as output of milky-colored fluid from a drain, drain site, or wound on or after postoperative day 3, with a triglyceride content ≥110 mg/dL (≥1.2 mmol/L). Three different grades of severity were defined according to the management needed: grade A, no specific intervention other than oral dietary restrictions; grade B, prolongation of hospital stay, nasoenteral nutrition with dietary restriction, total parenteral nutrition, octreotide, maintenance of surgical drains, or placement of new percutaneous drains; and grade C, need for other more invasive in-hospital treatment, intensive care unit admission, or mortality. Conclusion This classification and grading system for chyle leak after pancreatic resection allows for comparison of outcomes between series. As with the other the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery consensus statements, this classification should facilitate communication and evaluation of different approaches to the prevention and treatment of this complication.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) provides the best chance for cure in the treatment of patients with localized pancreatic head cancer. In patients with a suspected, clinically resectable ...pancreatic head malignancy, the need for histologic confirmation before proceeding with PD has not historically been required, but remains controversial. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature and worked together to establish a consensus on when to perform a PD in the absence of positive histology. Results The incidence of benign disease after PD for a presumed malignancy is 5–13%. Diagnosis by endoscopic cholangiopancreatography brushings and percutaneous fine-needle aspiration are highly specific, but poorly sensitive. Aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has greater sensitivity, but it is highly operator dependent and increases expense. The incidence of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) in the benign resected specimens is 30–43%. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy, serum levels of immunoglobulin G4, and HISORt (Histology, Imaging, Serology, Other organ involvement, and Response to therapy) are used for diagnosis. If AIP is suspected but not confirmed, the response to a short course of steroids is helpful for diagnosis. Conclusion In the presence of a solid mass suspicious for malignancy, consensus was reached that biopsy proof is not required before proceeding with resection. Confirmation of malignancy, however, is mandatory for patients with borderline resectable disease to be treated with neoadjuvant therapy before exploration for resection. When a diagnosis of AIP is highly suspected, a biopsy is recommended, and a short course of steroid treatment should be considered if the biopsy does not reveal features suspicious for malignancy.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (grades B and C of the ISGPS definition) remains the most troublesome complication after pancreatoduodenectomy. The approach to ...management of the pancreatic remnant via some form of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis determines the incidence and severity of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Despite numerous trials comparing diverse pancreatico-enteric anastomosis techniques and other adjunctive strategies (pancreatic duct stenting, somatostatin analogues, etc), currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the ideal method of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the best contemporary literature concerning pancreatico-enteric anastomosis and worked to develop a position statement on pancreatic anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy. Results There is inherent risk assumed by creating a pancreatico-enteric anastomosis based on factors related to the gland (eg, parenchymal texture, disease pathology). None of the technical variations of pancreaticojejunal or pancreaticogastric anastomosis, such as duct-mucosa, invagination method, and binding technique, have been found to be consistently superior to another. Randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy yield conflicting results and are inherently prone to bias due to marked heterogeneity in the studies. The benefit of stenting the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis to decrease clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula is not supported by high-level evidence. While controversial, somatostatin analogues appear to decrease perioperative complications but not mortality, although consistent data across the more than 20 studies addressing this topic are lacking. The Fistula Risk Score is useful for predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula as well as for comparing outcomes of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis across studies. Conclusion Currently, no specific technique can eliminate development of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. While consistent practice of any standardized technique may decrease the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, experienced surgeons can have lower postoperative pancreatic fistula rates performing a variety of techniques depending on the clinical situation. There is no clear evidence on the benefit of internal or external stenting after pancreatico-enteric anastomosis. The use of somatostatin analogues may be important in decreasing morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy, but it remains controversial. Future studies should focus on novel approaches to decrease the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula with appropriate risk adjustment.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background Complete macroscopic tumor resection is one of the most relevant predictors of long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Because locally advanced pancreatic tumors can ...involve adjacent organs, “extended” pancreatectomy that includes the resection of additional organs may be needed to achieve this goal. Our aim was to develop a common consistent terminology to be used in centers reporting results of pancreatic resections for cancer. Methods An international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature on extended pancreatectomies and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and the role of extended pancreatectomy in pancreatic cancer. Results Macroscopic (R1) and microscopic (R0) complete tumor resection can be achieved in patients with locally advanced disease by extended pancreatectomy. Operative time, blood loss, need for blood transfusions, duration of stay in the intensive care unit, and hospital morbidity, and possibly also perioperative mortality are increased with extended resections. Long-term survival is similar compared with standard resections but appears to be better compared with bypass surgery or nonsurgical palliative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. It was not possible to identify any clear prognostic criteria based on the specific additional organ resected. Conclusion Despite increased perioperative morbidity, extended pancreatectomy is warranted in locally advanced disease to achieve long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma if macroscopic clearance can be achieved. Definitions of extended pancreatectomies for locally advanced disease (and not distant metastatic disease) are established that are crucial for comparison of results of future trials across different practices and countries, in particular for those using neoadjuvant therapy.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background The lymph node (Ln) status of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an important predictor of survival. The survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy during ...pancreatectomy is, however, disputed, and there is no true definition of the optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to formulate a definition for standard lymphadenectomy during pancreatectomy. Methods During a consensus meeting of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, pancreatic surgeons formulated a consensus statement based on available literature and their experience. Results The nomenclature of the Japanese Pancreas Society was accepted by all participants. Extended lymphadenectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of Ln's along the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and around the celiac trunk, splenic artery, or left gastric artery showed no survival benefit compared with a standard lymphadenectomy. No level I evidence was available on prognostic impact of positive para-aortic Ln's. Consensus was reached on selectively removing suspected Ln's outside the resection area for frozen section. No consensus was reached on continuing or terminating resection in cases where these nodes were positive. Conclusion Extended lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended. Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy should strive to resect Ln stations no. 5, 6, 8a, 12b1, 12b2, 12c, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, and 17b. For cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas, removal of stations 10, 11, and 18 is standard. Furthermore, lymphadenectomy is important for adequate nodal staging. Both pancreatic resection in relatively fit patients or nonresectional palliative treatment were accepted as acceptable treatment in cases of positive Ln's outside the resection plane. This consensus statement could serve as a guide for surgeons and researchers in future directives and new clinical studies.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (CR-POPF) are serious inherent risks of pancreatic resection. Preoperative CR-POPF risk assessment is currently inadequate and rarely ...disqualifies patients who need resection. The best evaluation of risk occurs intraoperatively, and should guide fistula prevention and response measures thereafter. We sought to develop a risk prediction tool for CR-POPF that features intraoperative assessment and reveals associated clinical and economic significance. Study Design Based on International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification, recognized risk factors for CR-POPF (small duct, soft pancreas, high-risk pathology, excessive blood loss) were evaluated during pancreaticoduodenectomy. An optimal risk score range model, selected from 3 different constructs, was first derived (n = 233) and then validated prospectively (n = 212). Clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated across 4 ranges of scores (negligible risk, 0 points; low risk, 1 to 2; intermediate risk, 3 to 6; high risk, 7 to 10). Results Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas occurred in 13% of patients. The incidence was greatest with excessive blood loss. Duct size <5 mm was associated with increased fistula rates that rose with even smaller ducts. These factors, together with soft pancreatic parenchyma and certain disease pathologies, afforded a highly predictive 10-point Fistula Risk Score. Risk scores strongly correlated with fistula development (p < 0.001). Notably, patients with scores of 0 points never developed a CR-POPF, while fistulas occurred in all patients with scores of 9 or 10. Other clinical and economic outcomes segregated by risk profile across the 4 risk strata. Conclusions A simple 10-point Fistula Risk Score derived during pancreaticoduodenectomy accurately predicts subsequent CR-POPF. It can be readily learned and broadly deployed. This prediction tool can help surgeons anticipate, identify, and manage this ominous complication from the outset.
Background In 2005, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula developed a definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula that has been accepted universally. Eleven years later, ...because postoperative pancreatic fistula remains one of the most relevant and harmful complications of pancreatic operation, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification has become the gold standard in defining postoperative pancreatic fistula in clinical practice. The aim of the present report is to verify the value of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula and to update the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification in light of recent evidence that has emerged, as well as to address the lingering controversies about the original definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Methods The International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula reconvened as the International Study Group in Pancreatic Surgery in order to perform a review of the recent literature and consequently to update and revise the grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Results Based on the literature since 2005 investigating the validity and clinical use of the original International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification, a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula is now redefined as a drain output of any measurable volume of fluid with an amylase level >3 times the upper limit of institutional normal serum amylase activity, associated with a clinically relevant development/condition related directly to the postoperative pancreatic fistula. Consequently, the former “grade A postoperative pancreatic fistula” is now redefined and called a “biochemical leak,” because it has no clinical importance and is no longer referred to a true pancreatic fistula. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C are confirmed but defined more strictly. In particular, grade B requires a change in the postoperative management; drains are either left in place >3 weeks or repositioned through endoscopic or percutaneous procedures. Grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula refers to those postoperative pancreatic fistula that require reoperation or lead to single or multiple organ failure and/or mortality attributable to the pancreatic fistula. Conclusion This new definition and grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula should lead to a more universally consistent evaluation of operative outcomes after pancreatic operation and will allow for a better comparison of techniques used to mitigate the rate and clinical impact of a pancreatic fistula. Use of this updated classification will also allow for more precise comparisons of surgical quality between surgeons and units who perform pancreatic surgery.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background A recent randomized trial used the Fistula Risk Score (FRS) to develop guidelines for selective drainage based on clinically relevant fistula (CR-POPF) risk. Additionally, postoperative ...day (POD) 1 drain and serum amylase have been identified as accurate postoperative predictors of CR-POPF. This study sought to identify patients who may benefit from selective drainage, as well as the optimal timing for drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy. Study Design One hundred six pancreatoduodenectomies from a previously reported RCT were assessed using risk-adjustment. The incidence of CR-POPF was compared between FRS risk cohorts. Drain and serum amylase values from POD 1 were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to establish cut-offs predictive of CR-POPF occurrence. A regression analysis compared drain removal randomizations (POD 3 vs POD 5). Results Three-quarters of patients had moderate/high CR-POPF risk. This group had a CR-POPF rate of 36.3% vs 7.7% among negligible/low risk patients (p = 0.005). The areas under the ROC curve for CR-POPF prediction using POD 1 drain and serum amylase values were 0.800 (p = 0.000001; 95% CI 0.70–0.90) and 0.655 (p = 0.012; 95% CI 0.55–0.77), respectively. No significant serum amylase cut-offs were identified. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤5,000 U/L had significantly lower rates of CR-POPF when randomized to POD 3 drain removal (4.2% vs 38.5%; p = 0.003); moreover, these patients experienced fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. Conclusions A clinical care protocol is proposed whereby drains are recommended for moderate/high FRS risk patients, but may be omitted in patients with negligible/low risk. Drain amylase values in moderate/high risk patients should then be evaluated on POD 1 to determine the optimal timing for drain removal. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤5,000 U/L have lower rates of CR-POPF with POD 3 (vs POD ≥ 5) drain removal; early drain removal is recommended for these patients.
Background The Fistula Risk Score (FRS) is a clinical tool developed from single-institutional data using primarily intraoperative factors to characterize the risk of clinically relevant pancreatic ...fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We developed a modified FRS based on objective, nationally accrued data that is more readily determined before resection. Study Design The 2012 NSQIP Pancreatic Demonstration Project (PDP) was used to identify 1,731 pancreaticoduodenectomy resections over 14 months (2011 to 2012). A randomly generated 70% cohort was used for model development, and the remaining 30% for internal validation. Univariate analysis was used to identify predictors of CR-POPF. Variables with a value of p < 0.1 were included in multivariable modeling. Results Five significant predictors of CR-POPF were identified and assigned points based on odds ratios: sex, BMI, preoperative total bilirubin, pancreatic ductal diameter, and gland texture. The 10-point model was further applied to the 2014 PDP for external validation. In the testing group, risk scores of 0 to 2 (negligible risk), 3 to 6 (low risk), 7 to 8 (intermediate risk), and 9 to 10 (high risk) were associated with CR-POPF rates of 0%, 6.7%, 16.4%, and 33.7%, respectively. Similar values were seen using the internal validation cohort: 0%, 6.3%, 13.5%, and 31.0%, respectively. The external validation values were 2.9%, 10.2%, 16.4%, and 25.8%, respectively. Conclusions This modified FRS allows for estimation of CR-POPF risk using preoperative and easily determined intraoperative factors, and will allow comparison of performance data for individual surgeons to national norms, improved perioperative counseling, and potential for scrutinizing and/or implementing interventions designed to decrease CR-POPF rates.
PDF
