No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has become part of the multimodality treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Summary Background Data: It is currently uncertain which are the preferable NAT regimens, who benefits from surgery, and whether more aggressive surgical strategy is motivated. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with BRPC/LAPC discussed and planned for NAT at multidisciplinary conference at Karolinska University Hospital from 2010 to 2017. Results: Of 233 patients eligible, 168 (72%) received NAT and were reevaluated for possibility of resection. A total of 156 (67%) patients (mean 64 yrs, 53% male) had pancreatic adenocarcinoma, comprising the study group for survival analysis. LAPC was diagnosed in 132 patients (85%), BRPC in 22 (14%), and resectable tumor in 2 (1.3%). Fifty patients (40.3%) received full-dose NAT. Only 54 (34.6%) had FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival among resected patients was similar for BRPC and LAPC (median survival 15.0 vs 14.5 mo, P = 0.4; and 31.9 vs 21.8 mo, P = 0.7, respectively). Resected patients had better survival than nonresected, irrespective of the type or whether full-dose NAT was given (median survival 22.4 vs 12.7 mo; 1-, 3-, and 5-yr survival: 86.4%, 38.9%, 26.9% vs 52.2%, 1.5%, 0%, respectively (P < 0001). For all preoperative values of Ca 19-9, surgical resection had positive impact on survival. Conclusions: All patients with BRPC/LAPC who do not progress during NAT should be considered for surgical resection, irrespective of the type or dose of NAT given. Higher levels of Ca 19-9 should not be considered an absolute contraindication for resection.

If the increasing rate of PEP is taken as defining factor, the wire-guided cannulation of a native papilla can be considered difficult after 5 min, five attempts, and two pancreatic guide-wire passages when any of those limits is exceeded.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20–30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

A 7-year-old girl with severe hereditary pancreatitis underwent total pancreatectomy. A total of 160 000 islet equivalents (6400 islet/kg) were transplanted to the brachioradialis muscle of the right forearm. Her plasma C-peptide level was undetectable after pancreatectomy but increased to 1.37 ng/mL after 17 days; at this time point, her insulin requirement was 0.75 units of insulin/kg/day. At 5-and 27-months, her hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and insulin requirements were 4.5 and 5.3% and 0.3 and 0.18 units/kg/day, respectively. Basal and stimulated C-peptide levels were 0.67 ± 0.07 and 3.36 ± 1.37 ng/mL, respectively. Stimulated insulin levels were 30% higher in the islet-bearing arm compared to the contralateral arm after glucagon stimulation. After surgery and islet transplantation, the quality of life improved dramatically and she gained 8 kg of weight. In summary, a normal HbA1c, a low insulin requirement and the absence of recurrent hypoglycemia and the gradient of insulin between the arms indicate that the intramuscularly transplanted islets contribute to a long-term clinically significant metabolic control.

PAR seems to be safe and feasible in well selected patients and associated with an advantage of survival compared to palliation, in patients affected by locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

In a multicenter randomized trial of patients with PSC and a dominant stricture, short-term stents were not superior to balloon dilatation and were associated with a significantly higher occurrence of treatment-related SAEs. Balloon dilatation should be the initial treatment of choice for dominant strictures in patients with PSC. This may be particularly relevant to patients with an intact papilla. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT01398917.