Daniel Mullady

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.