| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kirkegård, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Intra-observer agreements in multidisciplinary team assessments of pancreatic cancer patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Wiley. - 0022-4790 .- 1096-9098. ; 124:8, s. 1402-1408
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Methods: Treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer patients are made by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) board. We aimed to assess intra-observer variance at MDT boards. Participating units staged, assessed resectability, and made treatment allocations for the same patients as they did two years earlier. We disseminated clinical information and CT images of pancreatic cancer patients judged by one MDT board to have nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer to the participating units. All units were asked to re-assess the TNM stage, resectability, and treatment allocation for each patient. To assess intra-observer variance, we computed %-agreements for each participating unit, defined as low (<50%), moderate (50%–75%), and high (>75%) agreement. Results: Eighteen patients were re-assessed by six MDT boards. The overall agreement was moderate for TNM-stage (ranging from 50%–70%) and resectability assessment (53%) but low for treatment allocation (46%). Agreement on resectability assessments was low to moderate. Findings were similar but more pronounced for treatment allocation. We observed a shift in treatment strategy towards increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced tumors. Conclusions: We found substantial intra-observer agreement variations across six different MDT boards of 18 pancreatic cancer patients with two years between the first and second assessment. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC
|
|
| 3. |
- Lassen, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Pancreaticoduodenectomy : ERAS recommendations.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Clinical Nutrition. - Edinburgh, UK : Churchill-Livingstone. - 0261-5614 .- 1532-1983. ; 32:5, s. 870-871
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- van Bodegraven, Eduard A., et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 1743-9191 .- 1743-9159. ; 110:6, s. 3554-3561
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. Patients and methods: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. Results: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m(2), previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. Conclusion: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
|
|
| 5. |
- Lassen, Kristoffer, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy : enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations
- 2013
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 37:2, s. 240-258
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Protocols for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and, as a result of this, also reduce length-of-stay in hospital. There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy.METHODS: An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence-based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group. The quality of evidence was rated "high", "moderate", "low" or "very low". Recommendations were graded as "strong" or "weak".RESULTS: Comprehensive guidelines are presented. Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations.CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence-based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy. A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders. It facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomised trials.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lassen, Kristoffer, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy : enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Clinical Nutrition. - Amsterdam, Netherlands : Elsevier. - 0261-5614 .- 1532-1983. ; 31:6, s. 817-830
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background & Aims: Protocols for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and, as a result of this, also reduce length-of-stay in hospital. There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy.Methods: An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence-based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group. The quality of evidence was rated "high", "moderate", "low" or "very low". Recommendations were graded as "strong" or "weak".Results: Comprehensive guidelines are presented. Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations.Conclusions: The present evidence-based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy. A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders. It facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomised trials.
|
|
