Background The prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor and selection of patients for surgery is challenging. This study examined the impact of a positive resection margin (R1) on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and overall survival (OS); and also aimed to identified tumour characteristics and/or technical factors associated with a positive resection margin in patients with PDAC. Methods Patients scheduled for pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2006 and 2016 were identified from an institutional database. The effect of resection margin status, patient characteristics and tumour characteristics on LRR, distant metastasis and OS was assessed. Results A total of 322 patients underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC. A positive resection (R1) margin was found in 129 patients (40·1 per cent); this was associated with decreased OS compared with that in patients with an R0 margin (median 15 (95 per cent c.i. 13 to 17) versus 22 months; P < 0·001). R1 status was associated with reduced time to LRR (median 16 versus 36 (not estimated, n.e.) months; P = 0·002). Disease recurrence patterns were similar in the R1 and R0 groups. Risk factors for early recurrence were tumour stage, positive lymph nodes (N1) and perineural invasion. Among 100 patients with N0 disease, R1 status was associated with shorter OS compared with R0 resection (median 17 (10 to 24) versus 45 (n.e.) months; P = 0·002), whereas R status was not related to OS in 222 patients with N1 disease (median 14 (12 to 16) versus 17 (15 to 19) months after R1 and R0 resection respectively; P = 0·068). Conclusion Although pancreatic resection with a positive margin was associated with poor survival and early recurrence, particularly in patients with N1 disease, disease recurrence patterns were similar between R1 and R0 groups.

Purpose: It is suggested that tumour markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) could be used to predict the stage of pancreatic cancer. However, optimal cut-off values for CEA and CA19-9 are disputable. This study aimed to assess the value of CEA and CA19-9 serum levels at diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) as predictors for the advanced stage of PDAC in patients discussed at pancreatic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. Methods: Patients with suspected PDAC discussed at MDT meetings from 2013 to 2017 were reviewed, in order to determine optimal cut-off values of both CEA and CA19-9. Results: In total, 375 patients were included. Optimal cut-off values for predicting advanced PDAC were 7.0 ng/ml for CEA and 305.0 U/ml for CA19-9, resulting in positive predictive values of 83.3%, 73.6%, and 91.4% for CEA, CA19-9 and combined, respectively. Both tumour markers were independent predictors of advanced PDAC, demonstrated by an odds ratio of 4.21 (95% CI:1.85-9.56; p ¼ 0.001) for CEA and 2.58 for CA19-9 (95% CI:1.30-5.14; p ¼ 0.007).Conclusions: CEA appears to be a more robust predictor of advanced PDAC than CA19-9. Implementing CEA and CA19-9 serum levels during MDT meetings as an additional tool for establishing tumour resectability is worthwhile for tailored diagnostics. ARTICLE HISTORY

BackgroundThe optimal analgesic technique after pancreatoduodenectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to see whether epidural analgesia (EA) has superior clinical outcomes compared with non‐epidural alternatives (N‐EA) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.MethodsA systematic review with meta‐analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. On 28 August 2018, relevant literature databases were searched. Primary outcomes were pain scores. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure of initial analgesia, complications, duration of hospital stay and mortality.ResultsThree RCTs and eight cohort studies (25 089 patients) were included. N‐EA treatments studied were: intravenous morphine, continuous wound infiltration, bilateral paravertebral thoracic catheters and intrathecal morphine. Patients receiving EA had a marginally lower pain score on days 0–3 after surgery than those receiving intravenous morphine (mean difference (MD) −0·50, 95 per cent c.i. −0·80 to −0·21; P < 0·001) and similar pain scores to patients who had continuous wound infiltration. Treatment failure occurred in 28·5 per cent of patients receiving EA, mainly for haemodynamic instability or inadequate pain control. EA was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·79; P < 0·001), shorter duration of hospital stay (MD −2·69 (95 per cent c.i. −2·76 to −2·62) days; P < 0·001) and lower mortality (OR 0·69, 0·51 to 0 93; P = 0·02) compared with intravenous morphine.ConclusionEA provides marginally lower pain scores in the first postoperative days than intravenous morphine, and appears to be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of hospital stay and less mortality.

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 24 h 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.

No abstract