Objective Resection can potentially cure resectable pancreatic cancer (PaC) and significantly prolong survival in some patients. This large-scale international study aimed to investigate variations in resection for PaC in Europe and USA and determinants for its utilisation. Design Data from six European population-based cancer registries and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database during 2003–2016 were analysed. Age-standardised resection rates for overall and stage I–II PaCs were computed. Associations between resection and demographic and clinical parameters were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 153 698 records were analysed. In population-based registries in 2012–2014, resection rates ranged from 13.2% (Estonia) to 21.2% (Slovenia) overall and from 34.8% (Norway) to 68.7% (Denmark) for stage I–II tumours, with great international variations. During 2003–2014, resection rates only increased in USA, the Netherlands and Denmark. Resection was significantly less frequently performed with more advanced tumour stage (ORs for stage III and IV versus stage I–II tumours: 0.05–0.18 and 0.01–0.06 across countries) and increasing age (ORs for patients 70–79 and ≥80 versus those <60 years: 0.37–0.63 and 0.03–0.16 across countries). Patients with advanced-stage tumours (stage III–IV: 63.8%–81.2%) and at older ages (≥70 years: 52.6%–59.5%) receiving less frequently resection comprised the majority of diagnosed cases. Patient performance status, tumour location and size were also associated with resection application. Conclusion Rates of PaC resection remain low in Europe and USA with great international variations. Further studies are warranted to explore reasons for these variations.

Background and Study Aims: Prospective data are lacking on the safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and on patient satisfaction with the procedure. We prospectively recorded complications related to EUS in order to establish morbidity and mortality. In addition the levels of patient satisfaction were evaluated, with regard to the tolerability of the procedure (pain, discomfort, and anxiety levels) and the provision of information. Patients and Methods: 3324 consecutive patients who underwent EUS were studied with regard to complications. During the study period 300 patients were interviewed and followed up in detail as part of the evaluation of patient satisfaction. Results: Ten patients (0.3 %) suffered from a complication related to the EUS procedure, and two patients died (0.06 %). There were no significant differences between the complication rates for EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and for EUS, but both fatal cases related to EUS-FNA/EUS-guided intervention. Nine of the ten patients with complications (90 %) had a diagnosis of malignancy, and esophageal perforation accounted for half of all complications. Although the majority of patients with nonlethal complications were managed well on conservative regimens, only one case, of self-limiting acute pancreatitis, could be classified as a mild complication. With regard to patient tolerability, only minor incidents occurred during the EUS procedure (tracheal suction 5 %, vomiting 0.3 %, aspiration 0.3 %) and no intervention was necessary. During the procedure, 80 % of the patients had no or only slight pain and more than 95 % experienced only slight or no anxiety, whereas more than half of the patients experienced moderate to severe discomfort. More than 90 % of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the information provided to them before and after the EUS, and the same number of patients were ready without hesitation to undergo an additional EUS examination if necessary. Conclusions: EUS, EUS-FNA and EUS-guided intervention are safe techniques, but severe and lethal complications do occur. The EUS procedures can be performed with a high level of patient satisfaction and with low levels of pain, discomfort and anxiety.

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopy-guided administration of aerosolized chemotherapy. PIPAC seems to improve objective tumor response, survival and quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis. We assessed feasibility and efficacy of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). Methods: Patients were included in a prospective PIPAC protocol. Patients with colorectal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with other primary tumors were treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Any chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers was monitored by environmental and biological sampling. Feasibility was quantified by completion and complication rates. Response evaluation was documented by the peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and by peritoneal lavage cytology. Biopsy sites were marked by clips. Quality of life questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 60, 120 and 180 days. Results: A total of 35 patients with PM were treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures (range 1–9). Intraperitoneal access and completion of PIPAC was achieved in all patients. Few complications and adverse events were noted. There was no risk of chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers. The mean PRGS was reduced significantly and a reduction of the PRGS was seen in 67% of the patients. Conversion from positive to negative cytology was achieved in 23% of the patients. Quality of life was stabilized from baseline to day 60. Conclusions: PIPAC is feasible and well tolerated, may stabilize the quality of life in patients with end-stage PM and may induce histological and cytological regression. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02320448].