| 1. |
- Asbun, H.J., et al.
(författare)
-
The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 271:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery. © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- de Graaf, Nine, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2) : study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1745-6215. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023. © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
|
|
| 5. |
- Korrel, Maarten, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Regional Health. - : ELSEVIER. - 2666-7762. ; 31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, & GE;1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society. Copyright & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- van der Heijde, Nicky, et al.
(författare)
-
Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1365-182X .- 1477-2574. ; 25:4, s. 400-408
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low-and high-volume centers across Europe.Methods: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality.Results: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed >= 20 MIPD annually. This was 30/ 54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD.Conclusion: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.
|
|
| 9. |
- van Kessel, Kim E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Molecular Markers Increase Precision of the European Association of Urology Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Progression Risk Groups
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - : AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265. ; 24:7, s. 1586-1593
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recommend risk stratification based on clinicopathologic parameters. Our aim was to investigate the added value of biomarkers to improve risk stratification of NMIBC. Experimental Design: We prospectively included 1,239 patients in follow-up for NMIBC in six European countries. Fresh-frozen tumor samples were analyzed for GATA2, TBX2, TBX3, and ZIC4 methylation and FGFR3, TERT, PIK3CA, and RAS mutation status. Cox regression analyses identified markers that were significantly associated with progression to muscle-invasive disease. The progression incidence rate (PIR = rate of progression per 100 patient-years) was calculated for subgroups. Results: In our cohort, 276 patients had a low, 273 an intermediate, and 555 a high risk of tumor progression based on the EAU NMIBC guideline. Fifty-seven patients (4.6%) progressed to muscle-invasive disease. The limited number of progressors in this large cohort compared with older studies is likely due to improved treatment in the past two decades. Overall, wild-type FGFR3 and methylation of GATA2 and TBX3 were significantly associated with progression (HR = 0.34, 2.53, and 2.64, respectively). The PIR for EAU high-risk patients was 4.25. On the basis of FGFR3 mutation status and methylation of GATA2, this cohort could be reclassified into a good class (PIR = 0.86, 26.2% of patients), a moderate class (PIR = 4.32, 49.7%), and a poor class (PIR = 7.66, 24.0%). Conclusions: We conclude that the addition of selected biomarkers to the EAU risk stratification increases its accuracy and identifies a subset of NMIBC patients with a very high risk of progression. (C) 2018 AACR.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
