Charles M. Vollmer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death among men and women in the United States. A major challenge in treatment remains patients' advanced disease at diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma provides recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pancreatic cancer. Although survival rates remain relatively unchanged, newer modalities of treatment, including targeted therapies, provide hope for improving patient outcomes. Sections of the manuscript have been updated to be concordant with the most recent update to the guidelines. This manuscript focuses on the available systemic therapy approaches, specifically the treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic disease.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. METHODS: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. RESULTS: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. CONCLUSION: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.