Surveillance of CDNK2A mutation carriers is relatively successful, detecting most PDACs at a resectable stage. The benefit of surveillance in families with FPC is less evident.

Background: Vessel-preserving spleen preservation (SP) during distal pancreatectomy (DP) is supposed to be beneficial for patients with benign and borderline tumors. This study evaluated the first experiences with robotic-assisted laparoscopic DP (RA-LDP) and its rate of vessel preservation and SP compared to conventional laparoscopic DP (C-LDP). Methods: Patients scheduled for spleen-preserving DP for benign or borderline tumors by either C-LDP or RA-LDP were retrieved from a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed regarding vessel-preservation and SP, conversion rate, blood loss, operating time, complications, perioperative blood transfusion, postoperative hospital stay (PHS) and mortality. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent C-LDP and 12 patients underwent RA-LDP between September 2009 and May 2015. SP rates were 79% (23 of 29) in the C-LDP and 92% (11 of 12) in the RA-LDP group (p = 0.32). Splenic vessels could be preserved in 17% (5 of 29) of the C-LDP and 50% (6 of 12) of the RA-LDP group (p = 0.052). Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, the number of perioperative red blood cell transfusions, overall morbidity and the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistulas were not different between the groups. PHS was shorter in the RA-LDP group (10.5 vs. 13 days; p = 0.02). Conclusion: RA-LDP for benign or borderline tumors of the pancreas is a safe procedure and tended to be associated with a better vessel-preservation rate, thereby making it a good alternative to C-LDP.

BackgroundPancreatic cancer screening is recommended to individuals at risk (IAR) of familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) families, but little is known about the acceptance of such screening programs. Thus, the acceptance and psychological aspects of a controlled FPC screening program was evaluated.MethodsIAR of FPC families underwent comprehensive counseling by a geneticist and pancreatologist prior to the proposed screening. Participating IAR, IAR who discontinued screening and IAR who never participated in the screening program were invited to complete questionnaires to assess the motivation for participating in surveillance, cancer worries, structural distress and experiences with participation. Questionnaires were completed anonymously to receive most accurate answers.ResultsOf 286 IAR to whom pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) screening was recommended, 139 (48.6%) IAR regularly participated (group 1), 49 (17.1%) IAR (group 2) discontinued screening after median 1 (1–10) screening visits and 98 (34.2%) IAR (group 3) never underwent screening. The overall response rate of questionnaires was 67% (189/286) with rates of 100% (139 of 139 IAR), 49% (29 of 49 IAR) and 23.4% (23 of 98 IAR) for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At least 93% of IAR felt adequately informed about the screening program after initial counseling. However, only 38.8% received knowledge of or the recommendation for PDAC screening by physicians. The reported cancer-related distress and the fear of investigations were highest in group 1, but acceptably low in all three groups. The main reasons to discontinue or not to participate in screening were the time efforts and travel costs (groups 2 and 3 48,7%).ConclusionLess than 50% of IAR regularly participate in a proposed PDAC screening program, although the associated psychological burden is quite low. Physicians should be educated about high risk PDAC groups and screening recommendations. Time and travel efforts must be reduced to encourage more IAR to participate in a recommended screening.

No abstract