Susanne G. Warner

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BACKGROUND Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways. METHODS An online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant-HPB and HPB-heavy surgical oncology fellowships. RESULTS A total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents. CONCLUSIONS Fellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.

Selecting incision-dominant cases for robotic liver resection: towards outpatient hepatectomy with rapid recovery

Background The premise of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is to minimize facial and muscle injury in order to enhance recovery from surgery. Robotic MIS surgery for resection of tumors in solid organs is gaining traction, though clear superiority of this approach is lacking and robotic surgery is more expensive. Our philosophy in robotically-assisted hepatectomy has been to employ this approach for cases where location of tumors make difficult a classical laparoscopic approach (superior/posterior tumors), and cases where the incision for an open operation dominates the course of recovery. Methods This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Results In this study we report 97 cases of liver resection subjected to the robotic approach, of which 90% were resected robotically. The mean operative time was 186±9 min; mean blood loss was 111±15 mL, and complications occurred in 9%. Two thirds of the patients remained in hospital 3 days or less, including three patients subjected to hemihepatectomy (2 left and 1 right). Fourteen individuals were discharged on the same day. The strongest predictors of long hospital stay (>3 days) were major hepatectomy (P=0.007), complications (P=0.008), and operative time >210 min (P=0.001). Conclusions With thoughtful case selection, this is a first demonstration that hepatectomy can be conducted as an out-patient or short-stay procedure.

Training and practice of the next generation HPB surgeon: analysis of the 2014 AHPBA residents' and fellows' symposium survey.

BACKGROUND Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery is a complex subspecialty drawing from varied training pools, and the need for competency is rapidly growing. However, no board certification process or standardized training metrics in HPB surgery exist in the Americas. This study aims to assess the attitudes of current trainees and HPB surgeons regarding the state of training, surgical practice and the HPB surgical job market in the Americas. STUDY DESIGN A 20-question survey was distributed to members of Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) with a valid e-mail address who attended the 2014 AHPBA. Descriptive statistics were generated for both the aggregate survey responses and by training category. RESULTS There were 176 responses with evenly distributed training tracks; surgical oncology (44, 28%), transplant (39, 24.8%) and HPB (38, 24.2%). The remaining tracks were HPB/Complex gastrointestinal (GI) and HPB/minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (29, 16% and 7, 4%). 51.2% of respondents thought a dedicated HPB surgery fellowship would be the best way to train HPB surgeons, and 68.1% felt the optimal training period would be a 2-year clinical fellowship with research opportunities. This corresponded to the 67.5% of the practicing HPB surgeons who said they would prefer to attend an HPB fellowship for 2 years as well. Overall, most respondents indicated their ideal job description was clinical practice with the ability to engage in clinical and/or outcomes research (52.3%). CONCLUSIONS This survey has demonstrated that HPB surgery has many training routes and practice patterns in the Americas. It highlights the need for specialized HPB surgical training and career education. This survey shows that there are many ways to train in HPB. A 2-year HPB fellowship was felt to be the best way to train to prepare for a clinically active HPB practice with clinical and outcomes research focus.

Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample

BackgroundRobotic surgery is offered at most major medical institutions. The extent of its use within general surgical oncology, however, is poorly understood. We hypothesized that robotic surgery adoption in surgical oncology is increasing annually, that is occurring in all surgical sites, and all regions of the US.Study designWe identified patients with site-specific malignancies treated with surgical resection from the National Inpatient Sample 2010–2014 databases. Operations were considered robotic if any ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code was used.ResultsWe identified 147,259 patients representing the following sites: esophageal (3%), stomach (5%), small bowel (5%), pancreas (7%), liver (5%), and colorectal (75%). Most operations were open (71%), followed by laparoscopic (26%), and robotic (3%). In 2010, only 1.1% of operations were robotic; over the 5-year study period, there was a 5.0-fold increase in robotic surgery, compared to 1.1-fold increase in laparoscopy and 1.2-fold decrease in open surgery (< 0.001). These trends were observed for all surgical sites and in all regions of the US, they were strongest for esophageal and colorectal operations, and in the Northeast. Adjusting for age and comorbidities, odds of having a robotic operation increased annually (5.6 times more likely by 2014), with similar length of stay (6.9 ± 6.5 vs 7.0 ± 6.5, p = 0.52) and rate of complications (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83–1.01, p = 0.08) compared to laparoscopy.ConclusionsRobotic surgery as a platform for minimally invasive surgery is increasing over time for oncologic operations. The growing use of robotic surgery will affect surgical oncology practice in the future, warranting further study of its impact on cost, outcomes, and surgical training.

Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?: LAROCCA et al.

Promotion and tenure are important milestones for academic surgical oncologists. The aim of this study was to quantify academic metrics associated with rank in surgical oncologists training the next generation.

Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Analysis of the National Cancer Database: RAOOF et al.

How the oncologic outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) compare to those after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) remains unknown.

Cytoreduction for colorectal metastases: liver, lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, bone, brain. When does it palliate, prolong survival, and potentially cure?

Colorectal cancer commonly metastasizes. The liver is the most frequent site of metastases and dominates the length of survival for this disease. As surgical and systemic therapies have become accepted and now are proven to be potentially curative, other sites of metastases have become more clinically relevant in terms of clinical symptoms and influence on survival. Treatment of extrahepatic metastases by surgical and ablative procedures is increasingly accepted and is proving to be effective at palliating symptoms, as well as life prolonging. In this review, we will first summarize key issues with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver and available treatments. We will then discuss surgical and ablative treatments of other sites of disease including lung, lymph nodes, peritoneum, bone, and brain. Best available evidence for treatment strategies will be presented as well as potential new directions.

Oncolytic Virotherapy versus Cancer Stem Cells: A Review of Approaches and Mechanisms

A growing body of evidence suggests that a subset of cells within tumors are resistant to conventional treatment modalities and may be responsible for disease recurrence. These cells are called cancer stem cells (CSC), which share properties with normal stem cells including self-renewal, pluripotency, drug resistance, and the ability to maintain quiescence. While most conventional therapies can efficiently destroy rapidly dividing cancer cells comprising the bulk of a tumor, they often fail to kill the less abundant and quiescent CSCs. Furthermore, killing of only differentiated cells in the tumor may actually allow for enrichment of CSCs and thereby portend a bad prognosis. Therefore, targeting of CSCs is important to achieve long-term success in cancer therapy. Oncolytic viruses represent a completely different class of therapeutics that can kill cancer cells in a variety of ways, which differ from those of conventional therapies. Hence, CSCs that are inherently resistant to conventional therapies may be susceptible to oncolytic virus-mediated killing. Recent studies have shown that oncolytic viruses can efficiently kill CSCs in many types of cancer. Here, we discuss the mechanism through which CSCs can escape conventional therapies and how they may still be susceptible to different classes of oncolytic viruses. Furthermore, we provide a summary of recent studies that have tested oncolytic viruses on CSCs of different origins and discuss possible future directions for this fascinating subset of oncolytic virus research.