Background: Composite outcome measures aim to provide a more holistic view when determining the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions. Recently, ‘Ideal Outcome’ (IO) harmonized the European and American composite outcome of pancreatic surgery. The rate of IO after pancreatoduodenectomy was 54% but is unknown after left pancreatectomy(LP). Methods: This transatlantic analysis included patients after LP from the audits in North America (NSQIP), Germany (StuDoQ), the Netherlands (DPCA), and Sweden (SNPPCR) (2014 – 2020). IO is obtained in the absence of (1)in-hospital mortality, (2)severe complications (Clavien-Dindo≥3), (3)postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C), (4)reoperation, (5)hospital stay exceeding the 75 th -percentile, and (6)readmission. Clinical predictors of IO were identified using a multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, 20,126 patients after LP were included (37.8% minimally invasive). The rate of IO after LP was 59.1%. The rate of IO varied among the four audits: North America 58.5%, Germany 53.4%, the Netherlands 56.9%, and Sweden 61.7% ( P <0.001). Among all variables, the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula differed the most: North America 9.8%, Germany 23.9%, the Netherlands 20.5%, and Sweden 10.6% ( P <0.001). Minimally invasive LP was associated with higher rates of IO (65.4% vs 53.3%, P <0.001) compared to open LP. No difference in the IO was observed between robot-assisted and laparoscopic LP. Conclusion: The new composite outcome measure IO was reached in 59% patients after LP and varied between four transatlantic audits. Minimally invasive LP was associated with higher rates of IO. IO can be used for evaluating, comparing, and improving patient outcomes between the four audits, especially regarding postoperative pancreatic fistula.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. METHODS:All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014-2020 were included. RESULTS:Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159-2.300, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS:Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.

Background: Health care providers of patients with cancer should discuss the impact of treatment, such as multiagent chemotherapy and surgery, on quality of life (QoL). However, in the era of shared decision-making, data on QoL in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) remain scarce. Methods: We performed a prospective multicenter study involving patients with LAPC across 13 Dutch centers. These patients were included in both the LAPC registry and the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03513705 ). The study evaluated QoL over time and assessed the impact of treatment. The primary outcome was global health status (GHS) based on the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes included functioning and symptom scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ Pancreatic Cancer Module (QLQ-PAN26). Outcomes were measured at diagnosis and at 3-month intervals up to 12 months. Outcomes were compared over time and between groups, with both statistical and clinical significance (Δ ≥10 points) evaluated. Results: A total of 170 patients completed at least one QoL-questionnaire. Most patients (n=152; 89%) received tumor-directed treatment, including 116 (68%) who received chemotherapy (± radiotherapy) alone and 36 (21%) who underwent chemotherapy (± radiotherapy) followed by resection; 18 (11%) patients received best supportive care (BSC). At baseline, GHS was highest among patients who received chemotherapy + resection (mean [SD], 70 [16]) compared with those receiving chemotherapy alone (mean [SD], 64 [20]) and BSC (mean [SD], 48 [21]) ( P =.001). The overall mean [SD] GHS at baseline was 63 [20] and remained stable over time ( P =.27), including in patients receiving tumor-directed treatment ( P =.57). One-third of the QoL subscales (9/28) showed statistically and clinically significant changes over time. Improvements were observed in appetite loss, pancreatic pain, and hepatic symptoms, although patients reported increased diarrhea, flatulence, altered bowel habits, and financial difficulties. Over time, patients reported reduced fear of future health, but a decline in health care satisfaction. Conclusions: This multicenter study demonstrated that general QoL remained stable during the first year in patients with LAPC, 89% of whom received tumor-directed treatment. Certain symptoms worsened and deserve greater attention from health care providers. These findings can guide shared decision-making and improve symptom management.

ImportanceThe effect of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX (combination leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin in full or modified dosing) chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) is unclear because current studies do not account for the number of cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX with OS, taking into account the number of cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with 2 to 11 cycles of preoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX followed by resection across 48 centers in 20 countries from 2010 to 2018. Patients who died within 3 months after surgery were excluded (landmark). Data were analyzed from February 1 to December 31, 2023.ExposuresPreoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by resection and eventually followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was OS, calculated from the 3-month landmark. Cox regression analysis, including interaction analyses, was performed to investigate the association of adjuvant chemotherapy with OS.ResultsOverall, 767 patients were included after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (median [IQR] age, 62 [55-67] years; 404 [52.7%] male). Adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87), confirmed by adjusted OS curves. The interaction analysis to assess estimated treatment effect across subgroups was not statistically significant. The forest plot and interaction test suggest that the association of adjuvant chemotherapy was lower among patients receiving 8 or more cycles of preoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX, those who had radiological response, and those with ypN0 disease. Compared to no adjuvant chemotherapy, both adjuvant (m)FOLFIRINOX (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.80) and other multiagent adjuvant regimens (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.92) were associated with prolonged OS, whereas single-agent adjuvant chemotherapy was not (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55-1.03).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, adjuvant (m)FOLFIRINOX and other multiagent chemotherapy regimens were associated with improved OS following resection of localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative (m)FOLFIRINOX, whereas single-agent adjuvant chemotherapy was not. The impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS may be lower in subgroups such as patients with 8 or more preoperative cycles of (m)FOLFIRINOX, those having radiological response, and those with ypN0.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has emerged as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the extent of variation in the use and outcomes of MIPD in relation to OPD among countries is unclear as international studies using registry data are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the use, patient selection, and outcomes of MIPD and OPD in four transatlantic audits for pancreatic surgery. A post hoc comparative analysis including consecutive patients after MIPD and OPD from four nationwide and multicenter pancreatic surgery audits from North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014–2020). Patient factors related to MIPD were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Outcome analyses excluded the Swedish audit because < 100 MIPD were performed during the studied period. Overall, 44,076 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy were included (29,107 North America, 7586 Germany, 4970 the Netherlands, and 2413 Sweden), including 3328 MIPD procedures (8

Importance: International guidelines lack consistency in their recommendations regarding routine imaging in the follow-up after pancreatic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Consequently, follow-up strategies differ between centers worldwide. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes, including recurrence-focused treatment and survival, in patients with PDAC recurrence who received symptomatic follow-up or routine imaging after pancreatic resection in international centers affiliated with the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA). Design, setting, and participants: This was a prospective, international, cross-sectional study. Patients from a total of 33 E-AHPBA centers from 13 countries were included between 2020 and 2021. According to the predefined study protocol, patients who underwent PDAC resection and were diagnosed with disease recurrence were prospectively included. Patients were stratified according to postoperative follow-up strategy: symptomatic follow-up (ie, without routine imaging) or routine imaging. Exposures: Symptomatic follow-up or routine imaging in patients who underwent PDAC resection. Main outcomes and measures: Overall survival (OS) was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. To adjust for potential confounders, multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between follow-up strategy and recurrence-focused treatment. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to study the independent association between follow-up strategy and OS. Results: Overall, 333 patients (mean [SD] age, 65 [11] years; 184 male [55%]) with PDAC recurrence were included. Median (IQR) follow-up at time of analysis 2 years after inclusion of the last patient was 40 (30-58) months. Of the total cohort, 98 patients (29%) received symptomatic follow-up, and 235 patients (71%) received routine imaging. OS was 23 months (95% CI, 19-29 months) vs 28 months (95% CI, 24-30 months) in the groups who received symptomatic follow-up vs routine imaging, respectively (P = .01). Routine imaging was associated with receiving recurrence-focused treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.41; P = .01) and prolonged OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-.99; P = .04). Conclusion and relevance: In this international, prospective, cross-sectional study, routine follow-up imaging after pancreatic resection for PDAC was independently associated with receiving recurrence-focused treatment and prolonged OS.

BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery are typically preoperatively assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, which is also used for case-mix adjustment when comparing centre outcomes. Studies determining the inter-rater variability of the ASA classification within hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery are currently lacking. METHODS:An international survey was collected and a case-vignette study was performed (November 2022-April 2023) regarding the ASA classification in patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery among anaesthesiologists and surgeons from (inter)national societies. The survey consisted of 23 questions and eight case-vignettes. Primary analysis included descriptive statistics and the inter-rater variability was calculated using Light's Kappa. RESULTS:Overall, 1283 participants from 55 countries responded: 1073 (84%) anaesthesiologists and 210 (16%) surgeons. The ASA classification was commonly used, both clinically 1003/1283 (78%) and for research 728/762 (96%). The majority of respondents (n = 1019, 79%) declared that ASA score impacted their perioperative strategy. There inter-rater variability was fair-moderate (Kappa 0.26-0.42) in all case-vignettes. Inter-rater variability differed within and among geographic regions for each case. Over 80% (n = 1138) of respondents stated that they would take the underlying disease (for example cancer) into account, but this changed the preferred ASA score within the case-vignettes by only 1%. Type of surgery changed the preferred score in the case-vignettes (13% difference). The most common suggestions to improve the ASA classification were to clarify whether type of operation should be considered, create a more extensive definition, and provide more examples. CONCLUSIONS:Inter-rater variability was present within the ASA classification of patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, which may impact perioperative strategy and hamper research results. Additional guidance to classify patients according to ASA is urgently needed. Until then, more objective measurements should be considered for case-mix adjustment within research.

Importance Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, −1.09, 95% CI, −3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705

BackgroundPancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP +/- PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.ResultsOverall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.ConclusionsPVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.

Importance:Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective:To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants:This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention:The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results:Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

INTRODUCTION:Refractory pain is a major clinical problem in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). New, effective therapies to reduce pain are urgently needed. Intravenous lidocaine is used in clinical practice in patients with PDAC and CP, but its efficacy has not been studied prospectively.METHODS:Multicenter prospective nonrandomized pilot study included patients with moderate or severe pain (Numeric Rating Scale >= 4) associated with PDAC or CP in 5 Dutch centers. An intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg was followed by continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/hr. The dose was raised every 15 minutes until treatment response (up to a maximum 2 mg/kg/hr) and consecutively administered for 2 hours. Primary outcome was the mean difference in pain severity, preinfusion, and the first day after (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] scale 1-10). A BPI decrease >= 1.3 points was considered clinically relevant.RESULTS:Overall, 30 patients were included, 19 with PDAC (63%) and 11 with CP (37%). The mean difference in BPI at day 1 was 1.1 (SD +/- 1.3) points for patients with PDAC and 0.5 (SD +/- 1.7) for patients with CP. A clinically relevant decrease in BPI on day 1 was reported in 9 of 29 patients (31%), and this response lasted up to 1 month. No serious complications were reported, and only 3 minor complications (vertigo, nausea, and tingling of mouth). Treatment with lidocaine did not impact quality of life.DISCUSSION:Intravenous lidocaine in patients with painful PDAC and CP did not show an overall clinically relevant reduction of pain. However, this pilot study shows that the treatment is feasible in this patient group and had a positive effect in a third of patients which lasted up to a month with only minor side effects. To prove or exclude the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, the study should be performed in a study with a greater sample size and less heterogeneous patient group.

Objective: The aim of this study is to define and assess Ideal Outcome in the national or multicenter registries of North America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Background: Assessing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy among centers and countries requires a broad evaluation that cannot be captured by a single parameter. Previously, 2 composite outcome measures (textbook outcome and optimal pancreatic surgery) for pancreatoduodenectomy have been described from Europe and the United States. These composites were harmonized into ideal outcome (IO). Methods: This analysis is a transatlantic retrospective study (2018–2020) of patients after pancreatoduodenectomy within the registries from North America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden. After 3 consensus meetings, IO for pancreatoduodenectomy was defined as the absence of all 6 parameters: (1) in-hospital mortality, (2) severe complications—Clavien-Dindo ≥3, (3) postoperative pancreatic fistula—International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) grade B/C, (4) reoperation, (5) hospital stay >75th percentile, and (6) readmission. Outcomes were evaluated using relative largest difference (RLD) and absolute largest difference (ALD), and multivariate regression models. Results: Overall, 21,036 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included, of whom 11,194 (54%) reached IO. The rate of IO varied between 55% in North America, 53% in Germany, 52% in The Netherlands, and 54% in Sweden (RLD: 1.1, ALD: 3%, P <0.001). Individual components varied with an ALD of 2% length of stay, 4% for in-hospital mortality, 12% severe complications, 10% postoperative pancreatic fistula, 11% reoperation, and 9% readmission. Age, sex, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, biliary drainage, absence of vascular resection, and histologic diagnosis were associated with IO. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, country, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy also was associated with improved IO. Conclusions: The newly developed composite outcome measure “Ideal Outcome” can be used for auditing and comparing outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy. The observed differences can be used to guide collaborative initiatives to further improve the outcomes of pancreatic surgery.

INTRODUCTION:Over the past 2 decades, physicians' wellbeing has become a topic of interest. It is currently unclear what the current needs are of early career academic surgeons (ECAS).METHODS:Consensus statements on academic needs were developed during a Delphi process, including all presenters from the previous European Surgical Association (ESA) meetings (2018-2022). The Delphi involved (1) a literature review, (2) Delphi form generation, and (3) an accelerated Delphi process. The Delphi form was generated by a steering group that discussed findings identified within the literature. The modified accelerated e-consensus approach included 3 rounds over a 4-week period. Consensus was defined as >80% agreement in any round.RESULTS:Forty respondents completed all 3 rounds of the Delphi. Median age was 37 years (interquartile range 5), and 53% were female. Majority were consultant/attending (52.5%), followed by PhD (22.5%), fellowship (15%), and residency (10%). ECAS was defined as a surgeon in 'development' years of clinical and academic practice relative to their career goals (87.9% agreement). Access to split academic and clinical contracts is desirable (87.5%). Consensus on the factors contributing to ECAS underperformance included: burnout (94.6%), lack of funding (80%), lack of mentorship (80%), and excessive clinical commitments (80%). Desirable factors to support ECAS development included: access to e-learning (90.9%), face-to-face networking opportunities (95%), support for research team development (100%), and specific formal mentorship (93.9%).CONCLUSION:The evolving role and responsibilities of ECAS require increasing strategic support, mentorship, and guidance on structured career planning. This will facilitate workforce sustainability in academic surgery in the future.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact and risk factors of chyle leak (CL). BACKGROUND:In 2017, the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) published the consensus definition of CL. Multicenter series validating this definition are lacking and previous studies investigating risk factors have used different definitions and showed heterogeneous results. METHODS:This observational cohort study included all consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy in all 19 centers in the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2017-2019). The primary endpoint was CL (ISGPS grade B/C). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:Overall, 2159 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The rate of CL was 7.0% (n=152), including 6.9% (n=150) grade B and 0.1% (n=2) grade C. CL was independently associated with a prolonged hospital stay [odds ratio (OR)=2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.85-4.36, P <0.001] but not with mortality (OR=0.3, 95% CI: 0.0-2.3, P =0.244). In multivariable analyses, independent predictors for CL were vascular resection (OR=2.1, 95% CI: 1.4-3.2, P <0.001) and open surgery (OR=3.5, 95% CI: 1.7-7.2, P =0.001). The number of resected lymph nodes and aortocaval lymph node sampling were not identified as predictors in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this nationwide analysis, the rate of ISGPS grade B/C CL after pancreatoduodenectomy was 7.0%. Although CL is associated with a prolonged hospital stay, the clinical impact is relatively minor in the vast majority (>98%) of patients. Vascular resection and open surgery are predictors of CL.

Objective: To assess the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in “second-generation” RPD centers following a multicenter training program adhering to the IDEAL framework. Background: The long learning curves for RPD reported from “pioneering” expert centers may discourage centers interested in starting an RPD program. However, the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves may be shorter in “second-generation” centers that participated in dedicated RPD training programs, although data are lacking. We report on the learning curves for RPD in “second-generation” centers trained in a dedicated nationwide program. Methods: Post hoc analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing RPD in 7 centers that participated in the LAELAPS-3 training program, each with a minimum annual volume of 50 pancreatoduodenectomies, using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (March 2016–December 2021). Cumulative sum analysis determined cutoffs for the 3 learning curves: operative time for the feasibility (1) risk-adjusted major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) for the proficiency, (2) and textbook outcome for the mastery, (3) learning curve. Outcomes before and after the cutoffs were compared for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. A survey was used to assess changes in practice and the most valued “lessons learned.” Results: Overall, 635 RPD were performed by 17 trained surgeons, with a conversion rate of 6.6% (n=42). The median annual volume of RPD per center was 22.5±6.8. From 2016 to 2021, the nationwide annual use of RPD increased from 0% to 23% whereas the use of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy decreased from 15% to 0%. The rate of major complications was 36.9% (n=234), surgical site infection 6.3% (n=40), postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) 26.9% (n=171), and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 3.5% (n=22). Cutoffs for the feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves were reached at 15, 62, and 84 RPD. Major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly before and after the cutoffs for the proficiency and mastery learning curves. Previous experience in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy shortened the feasibility (−12 RPDs, −44%), proficiency (−32 RPDs, −34%), and mastery phase learning curve (−34 RPDs, −23%), but did not improve clinical outcome. Conclusions: The feasibility, proficiency, and mastery learning curves for RPD at 15, 62, and 84 procedures in “second-generation” centers after a multicenter training program were considerably shorter than previously reported from “pioneering” expert centers. The learning curve cutoffs and prior laparoscopic experience did not impact major morbidity and mortality. These findings demonstrate the safety and value of a nationwide training program for RPD in centers with sufficient volume.