← Issue №1/ week of Jun 24, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Pancreas/Biliary, in full.

All 3 Pancreas/Biliary papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 3, in full

most clinically useful first
Pancreas/Biliary rct · n=254 · Jul 1, 2026 · BMJ · IF 42.7

Robotic versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy (PORTAL): multicentre, single masked, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

New therapy
Clinical takeawayFor resectable pancreatic or periampullary disease in eligible patients at high-volume centers, consider robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) as a non-inferior alternative to open surgery (OPD) for potentially faster recovery and reduced complications.
What it foundRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) showed faster postoperative functional recovery than open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) (12.1 vs 16.0 days RMET, difference -3.9 days, P<0.001), with similar morbidity (31.1% vs 36.1%) and lower Clavien-Dindo grade II+ complications (23.5% vs 34.4%).
ContextThis RCT provides level 1 evidence that RPD is non-inferior to OPD in both safety and recovery outcomes, supporting its adoption in tertiary centers with robotic expertise.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· International Association of Pancreatology, "International evidence-based Kyoto guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas" (Ohtsuka T, Fernández-del Castillo C, Furukawa T, et al.), Pancreatology, 2024

Decision at stakethe choice between robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for resectable pancreatic or periampullary disease

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Kyoto 2024 (IAP) applies a single HRS/WF risk-stratification algorithm to all IPMN, including main-duct and mixed types. Workup uses a combination of MDCT, MRI/MRCP, and EUS plus blood tests (tumor markers, HbA1c) per institutional policy, the guideline considers MDCT, MRI, and EUS equivalent for diagnosis rather than designating MRI/MRCP as the single preferred initial modality; new in 2024, EUS imaging and EUS-FNA cytology are folded into the HRS/WF assessment when EUS is performed. High-risk stigmata (HRS): (1) obstructive jaundice in a patient with a cystic lesion of the pancreatic head, (2) enhancing mural nodule >=5 mm or a solid component, (3) main pancreatic duct >=10 mm, and (4) suspicious or positive cytology if EUS-FNA was done. Worrisome features (WF): (1) acute pancreatitis, (2) elevated CA19-9 (>37 U/mL), (3) new-onset or acute exacerbation of diabetes within the past year, (4) cyst >=30 mm, (5) enhancing mural nodule <5 mm, (6) thickened/enhancing cyst walls, (7) MPD >=5 and <10 mm, (8) abrupt change in duct caliber with distal parenchymal atrophy, (9) lymphadenopathy, and (10) cyst growth rate >=2.5 mm/year. Importantly, Kyoto deliberately keeps the 'HRS/WF' framing rather than 'absolute/relative indication': the operative decision is a careful multidisciplinary judgment weighing the degree of suspicion for high-grade dysplasia/invasive carcinoma AGAINST the patient's general condition, comorbidity, life expectancy, and preference, HRS should trigger consideration of resection, not automatic resection, and WF should prompt EUS and multidisciplinary evaluation, with EUS-FNA cytology/molecular sampling reserved for cases in which its results would actually alter management (per Kyoto, the indication for cyst-fluid sampling by EUS-FNA is limited to when further management will be altered according to the results, and FNA should not be performed when HRS is already obvious on MDCT/MRI and surgery is otherwise indicated). MD-IPMN and mixed IPMN are managed by the SAME algorithm, with the surgical decision driven by suspicion for invasive carcinoma and the goal of a negative margin, not by main-duct involvement alone. Non-resected BD-IPMN enters size-stratified surveillance: <20 mm, at 6 months once, then every 18 months if stable; 20 to <30 mm, every 6 months x2, then every 12 months if stable; >=30 mm, every 6 months. On discontinuing surveillance, Kyoto offers TWO options for small unchanged BD-IPMN ('stop surveillance' vs 'continue surveillance' because of possible concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma): surveillance MAY be discontinued for cysts <20 mm with no morphological change and no worrisome features after 5 years, with consideration of patient condition and life expectancy, and SHOULD be discontinued for patients unfit for surgery or with life expectancy <10 years, but this discontinuation guidance may not apply to younger patients, and cumulative concomitant-PDAC risk continues to accrue (reported 2.2%, 4.6%, 7.4% at 5, 10, 15 years in one Japanese BD-IPMN cohort), so continued surveillance remains a legitimate alternative. After resection of non-invasive IPMN the pancreatic remnant carries increased risk and warrants long-term surveillance as long as the patient remains fit for further intervention (roughly yearly imaging without additional risk factors, every 6 months with higher-risk features); after total pancreatectomy for non-invasive disease, IPMN-specific surveillance may stop if uneventful over 5 years. (Kyoto 2024 addresses IPMN specifically; the 'all presumed MCNs are resected' rule and the family-history/germline CAPS pathway in the current entry come from other guidelines and are not part of this document.)

International Association of Pancreatology, "International evidence-based Kyoto guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas" (Ohtsuka T, Fernández-del Castillo C, Furukawa T, et al.), Pancreatology, 2024 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Jin J … Shen B · BMJ · IF 42.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary prospective cohort · n=142 · Jul 6, 2026 · J Hepatology · IF 40.1

Durvalumab with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens in advanced biliary tract cancer: primary results from the phase IIIb TOURMALINE study.

New evidencecholangiocarcinoma
Clinical takeawayDurvalumab added to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is already standard first-line care for advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1); TOURMALINE supports its safety and efficacy across a broader range of gemcitabine-based regimens rather than establishing a new, unadopted therapy.
What it foundDurvalumab plus gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens showed manageable safety (50.7% Grade 3/4 PRAEs) and efficacy (median OS 13.50 months, ORR 33.1%) in advanced biliary tract cancer.
ContextThis study expands on TOPAZ-1 by evaluating durvalumab with seven gemcitabine-based regimens, confirming its feasibility and efficacy in a broader, real-world population with advanced biliary tract cancer.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930

Decision at staketreatment options for advanced biliary tract cancer

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Distinguish benign from malignant biliary strictures using cross-sectional imaging (MRI/MRCP preferred over contrast-enhanced CT) plus laboratory tests, interpreting CA19-9 after biliary decompression and never relying on tumor markers alone; check serum IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected (HISORt criteria). Per the ESGE 2024 diagnostic work-up guideline, tissue-acquisition strategy now branches by stricture location rather than following one linear sequence: for DISTAL extrahepatic strictures with jaundice and no pancreatic mass, combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA, end-cutting FNB needle) plus ERCP-based tissue acquisition (standard brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy) is the strongly preferred first-line approach; for PERIHILAR strictures, obtain brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy at index ERCP, escalate indeterminate strictures to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy (with intraductal ultrasound/confocal laser endomicroscopy selectively), and reserve EUS-TA for cases where ERCP-based sampling is insufficient and curative resection is not feasible and/or extraluminal disease is accessible; escalate any positive or indeterminate feature to multidisciplinary tumor board. Manage benign anastomotic and chronic-pancreatitis strictures with a fully-covered self-expanding metal stent for 6-12 months (multiple plastic stents when FCSEMS is contraindicated, hepaticojejunostomy if refractory). Treat cholangitis with biliary obstruction as an indication for urgent biliary drainage, but do not instrument every obstructed sector: for hilar or multisegmental strictures (Bismuth II-IV), ESGE suggests draining ≥50% of the liver volume and avoiding opacification of biliary ducts that will not be drained (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence), because post-ERCP cholangitis frequently complicates injection of obstructed ducts that are not subsequently drained, whereas drainage of >50% of liver volume is associated with less cholangitis and longer survival; ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before biliary stenting in selected patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients, expected incomplete biliary drainage; weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), with a full antibiotic course if adequate drainage is not achieved during the procedure. Direct etiology-specific care for Strasberg bile-duct injuries, post-transplant strictures (ASGE 2023: ERCP preferred over PTBD, covered SEMS preferred over multiple plastic stents), IgG4-sclerosing cholangitis, Mirizzi syndrome, and choledochal cysts.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Oh DY … Vogel A · Journal of Hepatology · IF 40.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary guideline · Jul 1, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

pRECIST: Guidelines for Response Criteria for Use in Trials Testing Therapeutics in Pancreatic Cancer.

Guideline / review
Clinical takeawayUse pRECIST criteria for consistent response assessment in clinical trials testing pancreatic cancer therapies, particularly in neoadjuvant settings, as it requires CT and PET imaging for combined size and metabolic evaluation.
What it foundpRECIST provides standardized criteria for assessing pancreatic tumor response via CT/PET scans, defining objective changes in tumor size (based on RECIST 1.1) and metabolic activity (via PET SUV measurements).
ContextRefines RECIST 1.1 by adding metabolic activity assessment via PET, addressing variability in pancreatic tumor response evaluation.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457.

Decision at stakehow to measure pancreatic tumor response to treatment

Offer GERMLINE testing for inherited susceptibility to EVERY patient with confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma regardless of family history, using a comprehensive multi-gene panel; separately, for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are candidates for anti-cancer therapy, obtain TUMOR/SOMATIC molecular profiling (broad NGS; RNA-based assays improve fusion detection; cell-free/liquid biopsy if tissue is insufficient).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations. Obtain tissue confirmation, preferably by EUS-guided FNA/FNB with core biopsy where feasible; biopsy is generally required before neoadjuvant or palliative therapy, whereas patients with clearly resectable disease may proceed to surgery without preoperative biopsy. Measure baseline CA 19-9 (interpret after biliary decompression / with normal bilirubin; it can be falsely low in Lewis-antigen-negative patients and falsely elevated with cholestasis). Offer GERMLINE testing for inherited susceptibility to EVERY patient with confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma regardless of family history, using a comprehensive multi-gene panel; separately, for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are candidates for anti-cancer therapy, obtain TUMOR/SOMATIC molecular profiling (broad NGS; RNA-based assays improve fusion detection; cell-free/liquid biopsy if tissue is insufficient). Assign resectability, resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced (unresectable), or metastatic, by multidisciplinary review, ideally at a high-volume center. RESECTABLE disease: upfront resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy for head/uncinate; distal pancreatectomy ± splenectomy for body/tail) followed by adjuvant therapy, or neoadjuvant therapy in selected high-risk patients; preferred adjuvant regimen is modified FOLFIRINOX in patients able to tolerate it, ideally begun within 12 weeks of surgery, for a total of ~6 months of perioperative systemic therapy. BORDERLINE RESECTABLE and LOCALLY ADVANCED disease: neoadjuvant systemic therapy, with or without subsequent chemoradiation/RT, then restaging and reassessment for resection. METASTATIC disease by performance status: good PS (ECOG 0-1, adequate organ function), first-line FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, with clinical trial preferred; after ~4-6 months without progression, transition to a maintenance strategy (including olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 carriers who have NOT progressed on first-line platinum-based therapy), a clinical trial, or a treatment break; intermediate PS (ECOG 2), clinical trial preferred, otherwise less-intensive first-line therapy (preferred gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel [category 1], or single-agent gemcitabine or capecitabine, or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CapeOx), since the intensive triplets (FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX) are limited to ECOG 0-1 and are generally not appropriate at ECOG 2, with the same maintenance-versus-progression reassessment applied after ~4-6 months without progression; poor PS (ECOG 3-4), palliative/best supportive care, with single-agent chemotherapy or a biomarker-directed agent only if clinically appropriate. Treat by molecular target wherever an actionable alteration is present, across lines: pembrolizumab (or dostarlimab) for MSI-H/dMMR and pembrolizumab for TMB-H, olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 (maintenance after platinum), larotrectinib/entrectinib for NTRK fusions, selpercatinib for RET fusions, dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E, erdafitinib for FGFR2 alterations, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-positive disease, zenocutuzumab for NRG1 fusion-positive disease, and (in recent NCCN versions) KRAS G12C inhibitors (adagrasib/sotorasib), several of these after prior systemic therapy. Integrate supportive care throughout: relieve obstructive jaundice with an endoscopic self-expanding metal stent in non-operative or neoadjuvant pathways, but do NOT perform routine preoperative biliary drainage before planned upfront resection; treat exocrine insufficiency with pancreatic enzyme replacement titrated to symptoms (common starting dose ~40,000-50,000 units of lipase with main meals, roughly half with snacks, increased as needed); manage refractory pain with celiac plexus neurolysis or palliative RT; relieve gastric outlet obstruction with surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (or enteral stenting); and provide VTE prophylaxis, nutritional support, and early palliative care.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Martin RCG … Shamsi K · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №1 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Pancreas/Biliary by RSS