Explore the vast range of titles available.

The scope of our study was to compare the predictive ability of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th and 8th edition in gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) patients, investigate the effect of AJCC 8th nodal status on the survival, and identify risk factors associated with the survival after N reclassification using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) in the period 2005–2015. The cohort consisted of 7743 patients diagnosed with GBC; 202 patients met the criteria for reclassification and were denoted as stage ≥III by AJCC 7th and 8th edition criteria. Overall survival concordance indices were similar for patients when classified by AJCC 8th (OS c-index: 0.665) versus AJCC 7th edition (OS c-index: 0.663). Relative mortality was higher within strata of T1, T2, and T3 patients with N2 compared with N1 stage (T1 HR: 2.258, p < 0.001; T2 HR: 1.607, p < 0.001; Τ3 HR: 1.306, p < 0.001). The risk of death was higher in T1–T3 patients with Nx compared with N1 stage (T1 HR: 1.281, p = 0.043, T2 HR: 2.221, p < 0.001, T3 HR: 2.194, p < 0.001). In patients with AJCC 8th edition stage ≥IIIB GBC and an available grade, univariate analysis showed that higher stage, Charlson–Deyo score ≥ 2, higher tumor grade, and unknown nodal status were associated with an increased risk of death, while year of diagnosis after 2013, academic center, chemotherapy. and radiation therapy were associated with decreased risk of death. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were associated with decreased risk of death in patients with T3–T4 and T2–T4 GBC, respectively. In conclusion, the updated AJCC 8th GBC staging system was comparable to the 7th edition, with the recently implemented changes in N classification assessment failing to improve the prognostic performance of the staging system. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the T2 stage subclassification as well as to clarify the association, if any is actually present, between advanced N staging and increased risk of death in patients of the same T stage.

BackgroundResection remains the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment for biliary tract cancers (BTCs). However, recent randomized data also support a role for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). This study aimed to characterize trends in the use of AC and subsequent outcomes in gallbladder cancer and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).MethodsThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with resected, localized BTC from 2010 to 2018. Trends in AC were compared among BTC subtypes and stages of disease. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of AC. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods.ResultsThe study identified 7039 patients: 4657 (66%) with gallbladder cancer, 1159 (17%) with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA), and 1223 (17%) with extrahepatic CCA (eCCA). Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 2172 (31%) patients, increasing from 23% in 2010 to 41% in 2018. Factors associated with AC included female sex, year of diagnosis, private insurance, care at an academic center, higher education, eCCA (vs iCCA), positive margins, and stage II or III disease (vs stage I). Alternatively, increasing age, higher comorbidity score, gallbladder cancer (vs iCCA), and farther travel distance for treatment were associated with reduced odds of AC. Overall, AC was not associated with a survival advantage. However, subgroup analysis showed that AC was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients with eCCA.ConclusionsAmong the patients with resected BTC, those who received AC were in the minority. In the context of recent randomized data and evolving recommendations, emphasis on guideline concordance with a focus on at-risk populations may improve outcomes.

BackgroundHepatectomy is the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, in patients unable to be resected, data comparing efficacy of alternatives including thermal ablation and radiation therapy (RT) remain limited. Herein, we compared survival between resection and other liver-directed therapies for small ICC within a national cancer registry.Patients and MethodsPatients with clinical stage I–III ICC < 3 cm diagnosed 2010–2018 who underwent resection, ablation, or RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods.ResultsOf 545 patients, 297 (54.5%) underwent resection, 114 (20.9%) ablation, and 134 (24.6%) RT. Median OS was similar between resection and ablation [50.5 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37.5–73.9; 39.5 months, 95% CI 28.7–58.4, p = 0.14], both exceeding that of RT (20.9 months, 95% CI 14.1–28.3). RT patients had high rates of stage III disease (10.4% RT vs. 1.8% ablation vs. 11.8% resection, p < 0.001), but the lowest rates of chemotherapy utilization (9.0% RT vs. 15.8% ablation vs. 38.7% resection, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, resection and ablation were associated with reduced mortality compared with RT [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.33–0.58 and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38–0.75, p < 0.001, respectively].ConclusionResection and ablation were associated with improved survival in patients with ICC < 3 cm compared with RT. Acknowledging confounders, anatomic constraints of ablation, limitations of available data, and need for prospective study, these results favor ablation in small ICC where resection is not feasible.

Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy and often presents with synchronous or metachronous distant spread. For patients with hepatic metastases, resection is the principal curative option. Liberalization of the indications for hepatic resection has introduced a number of challenges related to the size, distribution, and number of metastases as well as the condition of the future liver remnant. Advances in systemic therapy have solidified its role as both an important adjunct to surgery and also for many patients as a mechanism to facilitate resection. In patients whose disease is marginally resectable as a consequence of the distribution of hepatic lesions that precludes complete resection or out of concern for the future liver remnant, a number of strategies have been advocated, including prehepatectomy systemic therapy, staged surgical approaches, ablative technologies, and preoperative portal vein embolization. It is the purpose of this review to discuss ways in which to optimize the treatment of patients with potentially resectable disease, specifically those who are judged to have “borderline” resectable situations.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has a learning curve of approximately 30–250 cases to reach proficiency. The learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) at Duke University was previously defined as 50 cases. This study describes the RPD learning curve for a single surgeon following experience with LPD. LPD and RPD were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous pathologic and perioperative metrics were compared and learning curve were defined with respect to operative time using CUSUM analysis. Seventeen LPD and 69 RPD were analyzed LPD had an inverted learning curve possibly accounting for proficiency attained during the surgeon’s fellowship and acquisition of new skills coinciding with more complex patient selection. The learning curve for RPD had three phases: accelerated early experience (cases 1–10), skill consolidation (cases 11–40), and improvement (cases 41–69), marked by reduction in operative time. Compared to LPD, RPD had shorter operative time (379 vs 479 min, p  < 0.005), less EBL (250 vs 500, p  < 0.02), and similar R0 resection. RPD also had improved LOS (7 vs 10 days, p  < 0.007), and lower rates of surgical site infection (10% vs 47%, p  < 0.002), DGE (19% vs 47%, p  < 0.03), and readmission (13% vs 41%, p  < 0.02). Experience in LPD may shorten the learning curve for RPD. The gap in surgical quality and perioperative outcomes between LPD and RPD will likely widen as exposure to robotics in General Surgery, Hepatopancreaticobiliary, and Surgical Oncology training programs increase.

Hemobilia, bleeding originating from the biliary tract or gallbladder, is an uncommonly encountered clinical entity that is most frequently the result of accidental or iatrogenic trauma. Other causes include gallstones, inflammation, vascular disorders, and neoplasms. Manifestations of hemobilia range from minor morbidity to life-threatening hemorrhage, and diagnostic workup by direct or radiographic visualization depends on the presentation. Hemodynamically stable patients can undergo conservative management, and for those patients requiring intervention, angiographic approaches have become the mainstay. Surgical intervention is required if nonoperative measures fail. Clinical suspicion is an important element of diagnosis and subsequent management of hemobilia.

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. The disease and its treatment can cause significant nutritional impairments that often adversely impact patient quality of life (QOL). The pancreas has both exocrine and endocrine functions and, in the setting of cancer, both systems may be affected. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) manifests as weight loss and steatorrhea, while endocrine insufficiency may result in diabetes mellitus. Surgical resection, a central component of pancreatic cancer treatment, may induce or exacerbate these dysfunctions. Nutritional and metabolic dysfunctions in patients with pancreatic cancer lack characterization, and few guidelines exist for nutritional support in patients after surgical resection. We reviewed publications from the past two decades (1995–2016) addressing the nutritional and metabolic status of patients with pancreatic cancer, grouping them into status at the time of diagnosis, status at the time of resection, and status of nutritional support throughout the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Here, we summarize the results of these investigations and evaluate the effectiveness of various types of nutritional support in patients after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We outline the following conservative perioperative strategies to optimize patient outcomes and guide the care of these patients: (1) patients with albumin < 2.5 mg/dL or weight loss > 10% should postpone surgery and begin aggressive nutrition supplementation; (2) patients with albumin < 3 mg/dL or weight loss between 5% and 10% should have nutrition supplementation prior to surgery; (3) enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred as a nutritional intervention over total parenteral nutrition (TPN) postoperatively; and, (4) a multidisciplinary approach should be used to allow for early detection of symptoms of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency alongside implementation of appropriate treatment to improve the patient’s quality of life.