| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Korenblik, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript : Training, Accreditation, Implementation and Safety Evaluation of Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization (PVE/HVE) to Accelerate Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Hypertrophy
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. - : Springer. - 0174-1551 .- 1432-086X. ; 45, s. 1391-1398
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Purpose The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Methods The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. Results Not applicable. Conclusion DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- 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/).
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Kuiper, Babette I., et al.
(författare)
-
Pan-European survey on current treatment strategies in patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases
- 2024
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 1365-182X .- 1477-2574. ; 26:5, s. 639-647
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is a lack of consensus on the definition of upfront resectability and use of perioperative systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This survey aimed to summarize the current treatment strategies for upfront resectable CRLM throughout Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association to gain insight into the current views on resectability and the use of systemic therapy for upfront Results: The survey was completed by 87 surgeons from 24 countries. The resectability of CRLM is mostly based on the volume of the future liver remnant, while considering tumor biology. Thermal ablation was considered as an acceptable adjunct to resection in parenchymal-sparing CRLM surgery by 77 % of the respondents. A total of 40.2 % of the respondents preferred standard perioperative systemic Conclusion: Among the participating European hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons, there is a high degree of consensus on the definition of CRLM resectability. However, there is much variety in the use of adjunctive thermal ablation. Major variations persist in the use of perioperative systemic therapy in cases of upfront resectable CRLM, stressing the need for further evidence and a consensus.
|
|
| 11. |
- Nordlinger, Bernard, et al.
(författare)
-
Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983) : a randomised controlled trial.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 371:9617, s. 1007-1016
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Surgical resection alone is regarded as the standard of care for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer, but relapse is common. We assessed the combination of perioperative chemotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Methods This parallel-group study reports the trial's final data for progression-free survival for a protocol unspecified interim time-point, while overall survival is still being monitored. 364 patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned to either six cycles of FOLFOX4 before and six cycles after surgery or to surgery alone (182 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 182 in surgery group). Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for Centre and risk score. The primary objective was to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 or less for progression-free survival. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Analyses were repeated for all eligible (171 vs 171) and resected patients (151 vs 152). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006479. Findings In the perioperative chemotherapy group, 151 (83%) patients were resected after a median of six (range 1-6) preoperative cycles and 115 (63%) patients received a median six (1-8) postoperative cycles. 152 (84%) patients were resected in the surgery group. The absolute increase in rate of progression-free survival at 3 years was 7.3% (from 28.1% [95-66% CI 21.3-35.51 to 35.4% [28.1-42.7]; HR 0 . 79 [0.62-1.02]; p=0.058) in randomised patients; 8 . 1% (from 28.1% [21.2-36.6] to 36.2% [28.7-43.8]; HR 0 . 77 [0-60-1 . 001; p=0 . 041) in eligible patients; and 9.2% (from 33.2% [25.3-41.2] to 42.4% [34.0-50.5]; HR 0.73 [0.55-0.97]; p=0.025) in patients undergoing resection. 139 patients died (64 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 75 in surgery group). Reversible postoperative complications occurred more often after chemotherapy than after surgery (40/159 [25%] vs 27/170 [16%]; p=0.04). After surgery we recorded two deaths in the surgery alone group and one in the perioperative chemotherapy group. Interpretation Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 is compatible with major liver surgery and reduces the risk of events of progression-free survival in eligible and resected. patients. Funding Swedish Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis.
|
|
| 12. |
- Nordlinger, Bernard, et al.
(författare)
-
Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983) : long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 14:12, s. 1208-1215
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Previous results of the EORTC intergroup trial 40983 showed that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) increases progression-free survival (PFS) compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Here we present overall survival data after long-term follow-up. Methods This randomised, controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 78 hospitals across Europe, Australia, and Hong Kong. Eligible patients aged 18-80 years who had histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to either perioperative FOLFOX4 or surgery alone. Perioperative FOLFOX4 consisted of six 14-day cycles of oxaliplatin 85mg/m(2), folinic acid 200 mg/m(2) (DL form) or 100 mg/m2 (L form) on days 1-2 plus bolus, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) (bolus) and 600 mg/m(2) (continuous 22 h infusion), before and after surgery. Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for centre and risk score and previous adjuvant chemotherapy to primary surgery for colorectal cancer, and the trial was open label. Analysis of overall survival was by intention to treat in all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006479. Findings Between Oct 10, 2000, and July 5, 2004, 364 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (182 patients in each group, of which 171 per group were eligible and 152 per group underwent resection). At a median follow-up of 8.5 years (IQR 7.6-9.5), 107 (59%) patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group had died versus 114 (63%) in the surgery-only group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68-1.14; p=0.34). In all randomly assigned patients, median overall survival was 61.3 months (95% CI 51.0-83.4) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 54.3 months (41.9-79.4) in the surgery alone group. 5-year overall survival was 51.2% (95% CI 43.6-58.3) in the perioperative chemotherapy group versus 47.8% (40.3-55.0) in the surgery-only group. Two patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three in the surgery-only group died from complications of protocol surgery, and one patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group died possibly as a result of toxicity of protocol treatment. Interpretation We found no difference in overall survival with the addition of perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 compared with surgery alone for patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. However, the previously observed benefit in PFS means that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 should remain the reference treatment for this population of patients.
|
|
