The Delphi and GRADE methodology used in the PSOGI 2018 consensus statement on Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Peritoneal Mesothelioma

Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP) and Peritoneal Mesothelioma (PM) are both rare peritoneal malignancies. Currently, affected patients may be treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy offering long-term survival or even cure in selected patients. However, many issues regarding the optimal treatment strategy are currently under debate. To aid physicians involved in the treatment of these patients in clinical decision making, the PSOGI executive committee proposed to create a consensus statement on PMP and PM. This manuscript describes the methodology of the consensus process. The Delphi technique is a reliable method for attaining consensus on a topic that lacks scientific evidence through multiple voting rounds which feeds back responses to the participants in between rounds. The GRADE system provides a structured framework for presenting and grading the available evidence. Separate questionnaires were created for PMP and PM and sent during two voting rounds to 80 and 38 experts, respectively. A consensus threshold of 51.0% was chosen. After the second round, consensus was reached on 92.9%–100.0% of the questions. The results were presented and discussed in the plenary session at the PSOGI 2018 international meeting in Paris. A third round for the remaining issues is currently in progress. In conclusion, using the Delphi technique and GRADE methodology, consensus was reached in many issues regarding the treatment of PM and PMP amongst an international panel of experts. The main results will be published in the near future

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (< 10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods/design: LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhan

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial

Background: The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. Methods/Design: The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 °C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. Discussion: Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival. Trial registration number: NCT02231086 (Clinicaltrials.gov)

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study)

Background: Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. Methods/design. Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma 3 cm, located between 115 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane i

Differences in patient- and tumor characteristics, treatment and survival between patients with screen-detected versus clinically detected colorectal peritoneal metastases

Introduction: Screening for colorectal cancer has been implemented to improve cancer-specific survival. This study aims to compare patient- and tumor characteristics, treatment, and survival between patients with screen-detected and clinically detected synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) in a Dutch population-based cohort.Methods: Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) were used. Screening was performed nationwide with biennial FIT and subsequent colonoscopy if positive. Patients within the screening age (55–75 years) and diagnosed with synchronous CPM between 2014 and 2020 were included. Data from the NCR was linked to the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank (Palga) to identify mode of detection. Baseline characteristics and treatment were compared between screen-detected CPM patients and clinically detected CPM patients using χ2-tests. Overall survival (OS) was compared between both groups with the log-rank test and a multivariable Cox regression analysis.Results: Of 2,773 included patients with synchronous CPM, 197 (7 %) were detected by screening. In the screen-detected group, 56 (28 %) patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) versus 363 (14 %) in the clinically detected group (p &lt; 0.001). Median OS was 20.0 months (IQR 9.7–51.7) in the screen-detected group versus 10.8 months (IQR 3.4–25.5) in the clinically detected group (p &lt; 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, CPM detected through screening was associated with improved OS compared to clinically detected CPM (adjusted HR 0.68, 95%CI [0.57–0.81]).Conclusions: Screen-detected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases more often received treatment with curative intent and had better OS compared to clinically detected patients.</p

Completion pancreatectomy or a pancreas-preserving procedure during relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy:a multicentre cohort study and meta-analysis

Background: Despite the fact that primary percutaneous catheter drainage has become standard practice, some patients with pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy ultimately undergo a relaparotomy. The aim of this study was to compare completion pancreatectomy with a pancreas-preserving procedure in patients undergoing relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Methods: This retrospective cohort study of nine institutions included patients who underwent relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy from 2005-2018. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.Results: From 4877 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 786 (16 per cent) developed a pancreatic fistula grade B/C and 162 (3 per cent) underwent a relaparotomy for pancreatic fistula. Of these patients, 36 (22 per cent) underwent a completion pancreatectomy and 126 (78 per cent) a pancreas-preserving procedure. Mortality was higher after completion pancreatectomy (20 (56 per cent) versus 40 patients (32 per cent); P=0.009), which remained after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous reintervention, and organ failure in the 24h before relaparotomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.55, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 6.08). The proportion of additional reinterventions was not different between groups (23 (64 per cent) versus 84 patients (67 per cent); P=0.756). The meta-analysis including 33 studies evaluating 745 patients, confirmed the association between completion pancreatectomy and mortality (Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model: odds ratio 1.99, 95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 3.84).Conclusion: Based on the current data, a pancreas-preserving procedure seems preferable to completion pancreatectomy in patients in whom a relaparotomy is deemed necessary for pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.Surgical oncolog

Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases:A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. Methods: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009–2015 and 2016–2021). Results: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009–2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016–2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009–2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96). In 2016–2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76–2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76–1.32). Conclusion: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.</p

Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases:A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. Methods: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009–2015 and 2016–2021). Results: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009–2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016–2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009–2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96). In 2016–2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76–2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76–1.32). Conclusion: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.</p