Objective: The aim of this study was to establish clinically relevant outcome benchmark values using criteria for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with portomesenteric venous resection (PVR) from a low-risk cohort managed in high-volume centers. Summary Background Data: PD with PVR is regarded as the standard of care in patients with cancer involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. There are, however, no benchmark outcome indicators for this population which hampers comparisons of patients undergoing PD with and without PVR resection. Methods: This multicenter study analyzed patients undergoing PD with any type of PVR in 23 high-volume centers from 2009 to 2018. Nineteen outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of the centers (NCT04053998). Results: Out of 1462 patients with PD and PVR, 840 (58%) formed the benchmark cohort, with a mean age was 64 (SD11) years, 413 (49%) were females. Benchmark cutoffs, among others, were calculated as follows: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate (International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery): ≤14%; in-hospital mortality rate: ≤4%; major complication rate Grade≥3 and the CCI up to 6 months postoperatively: ≤36% and ≤26, respectively; portal vein thrombosis rate: ≤14% and 5-year survival for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: ≥9%. Conclusion: These novel benchmark cutoffs targeting surgical performance, morbidity, mortality, and oncological parameters show relatively inferior results in patients undergoing vascular resection because of involvement of the portomesenteric venous axis. These benchmark values however can be used to conclusively assess the results of different centers or surgeons operating on this high-risk group.

Background: Unresectable cholangiocarcinoma has a poor prognosis and treatment options are limited. Combined systemic and intrahepatic chemotherapy may improve local control and enable downsizing. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of intravenous gemcitabine combined with intravenous cisplatin and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) with floxuridine (FUDR) in patients with unresectable intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Twelve patients were treated within a 3 + 3 dose escalation algorithm with 600, 800, or 1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and predefined doses of cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, q21, for 4 cycles, and FUDR 0.2 mg/kg on days 1–14 as continuous HAI, q28, for 3 cycles. Safety and toxicity as well as resectability rates after 3 months and preliminary survival data are reported. Results: The determined MTD for gemcitabine was 800 mg/m2. Dose limiting toxicities were neutropenic fever and biliary tract infections. In total, 27% of the patients showed partial remission and 73% stable disease. Although none of the patients achieved resectability after 3 months, the 3-year overall survival rate was 33%, median overall survival 23.9 months (range 1–49), and median progression-free survival 10.1 months (range 2–40). Conclusions: Intravenous gemcitabine/cisplatin plus HAI-FUDR is feasible and appears effective for disease control. Larger prospective studies evaluating this triplet combination are warranted.

Microwave (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are main ablative techniques for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (MT). This randomized phase 2 clinical trial compares the effectiveness of MWA and RFA as well as morphology of corresponding ablation zones. HCC and MT patients with 1.5–4 cm tumors, suitable for ablation, were randomized into MWA or RFA Groups. The primary endpoint was short-to-long diameter ratio of ablation zone (SLR). Primary technical success (TS) and a cumulative local tumor progression (LTP) after a median 2-year follow-up were compared. Between June 2015 and April 2020, 82 patients were randomly assigned (41 patients per group). For the per-protocol analysis, five patients were excluded. MWA created larger ablation zones than RFA (p = 0.036) although without differences in SLR (0.5 for both groups, p = 0.229). The TS was achieved in 98% (46/47) and 90% (45/50) (p = 0.108), and LTP was observed in 21% (10/47) vs. 12% (6/50) (OR 1.9 [95% CI 0.66–5.3], p = 0.238) of tumors in MWA vs. RFA Group, respectively. Major complications were found in 5 cases (11%) vs. 2 cases (4%), without statistical significance. MWA and RFA show similar SLR, effectiveness and safety in liver tumors between 1.5 and 4 cm.

Acute diverticulitis occurs in up to 25% of patients with diverticulosis. The majority of cases are mild or uncomplicated and it has become a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department. On the basis of the National Inpatient Sample database from the USA, 86% of patients admitted with diverticulitis were treated with medical therapy. However, several recent studies have shown that outpatient treatment with antibiotics is safe and effective. The aim of this systematic review is to update the evidence published in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines and searched in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases all English-language articles on the management of acute diverticulitis using the following search terms: 'diverticulitis', 'outpatient', and 'uncomplicated'. Data were extracted independently by two investigators. A total of 11 articles for full review were yielded: one randomized controlled trial, eight prospective cohort studies, and two retrospective cohort studies. Treatment successful rate on an outpatient basis, which means that no further complications were reported, ranged from 91.5 to 100%. Fewer than 8% of patients were readmitted in the hospital. Intolerance to oral intake and lack of family or social support are common exclusion criteria used for this approach, whereas severe comorbidities are not definitive exclusion criteria in all the studies. Ambulatory treatment of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis is safe, effective, and economically efficient when applying an appropriate selection in most reviewed studies.