Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and invasive intraductal papillary mucinous tumor: Different prognostic factors for different overall survival

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) has different clinical and prognostic characteristics, beyond histological factors, when compared to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

AIMS

compare prognostic features of resected PDAC and invasive IPMN METHODS: A retrospective study of patients resected for PDAC or invasive IPMN realized at Humanitas Cancer Center's Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Milan, Italy, between 2010 and 2016. Data recorded included patient demographics, onset symptoms, preoperative health status, tumor features, histology and surgical characteristics. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and prognostic factors for survival were assessed by multivariate Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 332 patients were included (PDAC, n = 289; invasive IPMN, n = 43). Patients with invasive IPMN had better overall survival than PDAC patients (median: 76.6 versus 25.6 months; 5-year OS rate: 65.4% vs. 14.2%; p < 0.001). PDAC histology was associated with a significantly higher risk of death than IPMN (hazard ratio 1.815, 95% CI: 1.02, 3.24; p = 0.044). Survival was also worse with PDAC in early-stage disease (IA-IB-IIA, N0). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of worse survival included perineural invasion, preoperative ASA physical status ≥3 and pain at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IPMN had a better prognosis than PDAC patients, regardless of disease stage.

[Surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer-What is new?]

The incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is continuously increasing and will become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the USA by 2030. With a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 10% the prognosis remains poor. So far surgical tumor resection remains the only curative treatment option, which is now partially supported by multimodal neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy concepts. Due to the aggressive tumor biology patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in particular can profit from these multimodal therapy concepts. Additionally, in recent years surgical treatment was optimized, the criteria for tumor resectablity were defined and minimally invasive surgery was widely introduced. This review article summarizes the newest developments and the new German S3 guidelines concerning surgery of pancreatic cancer.

Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2021: A summary of evidence-based surgical approaches

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Korea. Despite the increasing incidence and high mortality rate of pancreatic cancer, there are no appropriate surgical practice guidelines for the current domestic medical situation. To enable standardization of management and facilitate improvements in surgical outcome, a total of 10 pancreatic surgical experts who are members of Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery have developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date, evidence-based research findings and expert opinions. This is an English version of the Korean Surgical Practice Guideline for Pancreatic Cancer 2021. This guideline includes 13 surgical questions and 15 statements. Due to the lack of high-level evidence, strong recommendation is almost impossible. However, we believe that this guideline will help surgeons understand the current status of evidence and suggest what to investigate further to establish more solid recommendations in the future.

Minimally invasive vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological adequacy: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has increased over the last decade. Most of the data on perioperative and oncological outcomes derives from single-center high-volume hospitals. The impact of MIPD on oncological outcomes in a multicenter setting is poorly understood.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to perform a propensity score matching analysis between MIPD vs open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes and surgical margins. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, length of stay, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 10,246 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2016. Among these patients, 1739 underwent MIPD. A propensity score matching analysis with a 1:2 ratio showed that the rate of lymphadenectomy ≥ 15 nodes was significantly higher for MIPD compared to OPD, 68.4% vs 62.5% (P < .0001), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of positive margins, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. OPD was associated with an increased rate of length of stay > 10 days, 36.6% vs 33% for MIPD (P < .01). Trend analysis for the patients who underwent MIPD revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy increased during the study period, 73.1% between 2015 and 2016 vs 63.2% between 2010 and 2012 (P < .001). In addition, the rate of conversion to OPD decreased over time, 29.3% between 2010 and 2012 vs 20.2% between 2015 and 2016 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity score matching analysis, the MIPD approach was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy and a shorter length of stay compared to OPD. The surgical margins status, 90-day mortality, and overall survival were similar between the groups.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: Chronologic changes in the trends and clinical outcomes through a 15-year, single-center experience with 2212 patients

BACKGROUND

We identified the chronologic changes in the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for left-sided pancreatic tumors in a single high-volume center over a period of 15 years.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2019, 2212 patients underwent planned MIDP. Chronologic changes were analyzed according to 5-year intervals (P1, P2, P3). Furthermore, we assessed the prognostic factors of open conversion and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

MIDP has steadily increased during the last 15 years when compared to open distal pancreatectomy, from 10.8% to 84.9%. Also, MIDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been steadily increasing from 5.6% to 68.4%. According to the 5-year intervals, lengths of hospital stay decreased, but age and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) ≥3 increased; conversely, the rates of Clavien-Dindo classification ≥grade 3 (9.5%) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (39.7%) showed no differences. The 90-day mortality and open conversion rates were 0.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed malignancy and extended pancreatectomy were risk factors for open conversion. Furthermore, the poor prognostic factors for severe complications were malignancy, extended pancreatectomy, and ASA ≥3.

CONCLUSION

MIDP has become a popular procedure not only for benign cases but also for malignant ones. However, well-organized training, experience and skill are necessary, especially for poor-performance patients and extensively malignant conditions.

Landmark Series: Importance of Pancreatic Resection Margins

An important goal of cancer surgery is to achieve negative surgical margins and remove all disease completely. For pancreatic neoplasms, microscopic margins may remain positive despite gross removal of the palpable mass, and surgeons must then consider extending resection, even to the point of completion pancreatectomy, an option that renders the patient with significant adverse effects related to exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. Counterintuitively, extending resection to ensure clear margins may not improve patient outcome. Furthermore, the goal of improving survival by extending the resection may not be achieved, as an initial positive margin may indicate more aggressive underlying tumor biology. There is a growing body of literature on this topic, and this landmark series review will examine the key publications that guide our management for resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

HOW TO PERFORM LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY USING THE CLOCKWISE TECHNIQUE

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy is currently a widely used approach for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas.

The role of coeliac axis resection in resected ductal adenocarcinoma of the distal pancreas: A result of tumour topography or a prognostic factor?

BACKGROUND

Whether coeliac axis resection (CAR) results from tumour topography or a prognostic factor for distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. We aimed to compare the clinicopathological data between distal pancreatectomy with en bloc CAR (DP-CAR) and distal pancreatectomy plus splenectomy (DP-S) and analyse the prognostic factors.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed clinicopathological data from 102 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC and the factors affecting disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Of these patients, 45 and 57 underwent DP-CAR and DP-S, respectively.

RESULTS

DP-CAR was associated with more operative challenges than DP-S: more portomesenteric vein resections (48.9% vs. 14.0%), longer operations (320 vs. 242 min), and greater estimated blood loss (EBL) (600 vs. 200 ml). DP-CAR had larger tumours (5 vs. 4 cm), more perineural invasion (91.1% vs. 73.7%), and more microscopically positive surgical margins (20% vs. 3.5%), compared to DP-S. The major complication was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (20.6%). The median DFS was 15.8 months and the median OS was 20.1 months. CAR was not associated with DFS or OS. EBL>700 ml, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and adjuvant chemotherapy independently affected DFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

DP-CAR was associated with larger tumours and more surgical challenges but not with poorer DFS and OS than DP-S. CAR was more likely to result from tumour topography rather than from an adverse prognostic factor for resected distal PDAC. EBL>700 ml, LVI, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent factors affecting the survival of patients with distal PDAC who underwent surgical resection.

Sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the preoperative workup of histologically proven left-sided pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Left-sided pancreatic lesions are often treated surgically. Accurate diagnostic work-up is therefore essential to prevent futile major abdominal surgery. Large series focusing specifically on the preoperative work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions are lacking. This surgical cohort analysis describes the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the diagnostic work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a left-sided pancreatic lesion between April 2010 and August 2017 and participated in the randomized CPR trial. Primary outcome was the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B. Sensitivity was determined as the most likely diagnosis of each modality compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Additionally, the change in sensitivity of EUS versus EUS-FNA/B (i.e., cyst fluid analysis, and/or tissue acquisition) was measured.

RESULTS

Overall, 181 patients were included (benign: 23%, premalignant: 27%, malignant: 50%). Most patients had solid lesions (65%). Preoperative imaging included CT (86%), MRI (41%), EUS (68%). Overall, CT and EUS-FNA/B reached a sensitivity of both 71%, compared with 66% for MRI. When EUS was combined with FNA/B, sensitivity rose from 64% to 71%. For solid lesions, CT reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with MRI (70%) and EUS-FNA/B (69%). For cystic lesions, EUS-FNA/B reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with CT and MRI (both 62%).

CONCLUSIONS

CT is the most sensitive diagnostic modality for solid and EUS-FNA/B for cystic left-sided pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA/B was associated with an increased sensitivity when compared to EUS alone.

Analysis of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the treatment of left pancreatic malignant tumors

OBJECTIVE

Distal pancreatectomy is the most extensive operation to treat malignant tumors of the left pancreas; however, malignant pancreatic tumors are prone to early invasion and metastasis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 80 patients undergoing surgical treatment for malignant tumors of the pancreatic body or tail from January 2013 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The main clinical variables were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general patient characteristics, complications, and postoperative survival (χ² = 0.09) between the groups. The operation time in the LDP group was significantly longer than that in the ODP group; however, the LDP group was superior to the ODP group regarding the length of postoperative hospital stay, diet recovery, and rectal exhaust and ambulation times.

CONCLUSION

LDP is a safe and feasible treatment for left pancreatic malignancies, with the same surgical efficacy as ODP. LDP also has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, such as minimal trauma and enhanced recovery after surgery.

Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is unknown whether the clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is comparable with that after open distal pancreatectomy. We aimed to compare not only the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but more importantly, also its clinical impact.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial investigating a possible beneficial impact of a fibrin patch on the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) after distal pancreatectomy. Primary outcomes of the current analysis are the incidence and clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after both minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

From October 2010 to August 2017, 252 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were randomized, and data of 247 patients were available for analysis: 87 minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and 160 open distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy (28.7% vs 16.9%, P = .029). More patients were discharged with an abdominal surgical drain after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy (30/87, 34.5% vs 26/160, 16.5%, P = .001). In patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula, additional percutaneous catheter drainage procedures were performed less often (52% vs 84.6%, P = .012), with fewer drainage procedures (median [range], 2 [1-4] vs 2, [1-7], P = .014) after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc analysis, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy, whereas the clinical impact was less.

Updated Principles of Surgical Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (pNETs): What Every Surgeon Needs to Know

Simple Summary

In this narrative review, we update the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) and highlight key elements in view of the recent literature. These tumours are rare and suffer from a lack of data and randomized controlled trials. The pNETs management is difficult due to their heterogeneity and the risks associated with pancreatic surgery. Innovative managements such as “watch and wait” strategies, parenchymal sparing surgery and minimally invasive approach are emerging. The correct use of all these therapeutic options requires a good selection of patients but also a constant update of knowledge.

Abstract

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) represent 1 to 2% of all pancreatic neoplasm with an increasing incidence. They have a varied clinical, biological and radiological presentation, depending on whether they are sporadic or genetic in origin, whether they are functional or non-functional, and whether there is a single or multiple lesions. These pNETs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage with locoregional lymph nodes invasion or distant metastases. In most cases, the gold standard curative treatment is surgical resection of the pancreatic tumour, but the postoperative complications and functional consequences are not negligible. Thus, these patients should be managed in specialised high-volume centres with multidisciplinary discussion involving surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and pathologists. Innovative managements such as “watch and wait” strategies, parenchymal sparing surgery and minimally invasive approach are emerging. The correct use of all these therapeutic options requires a good selection of patients but also a constant update of knowledge. The aim of this work is to update the surgical management of pNETs and to highlight key elements in view of the recent literature.

State-of-the-art surgery for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The d evelopment of surgical techniques and specialization and specifically complication management in pancreatic surgery have improved surgical outcomes as well as oncological results in pancreatic surgery in recent decades. Historical morbidity and especially mortality rates of up to 80% have decreased to below 5% today. This review summarizes the current state of the art in pancreatic cancer surgery.

METHODS

The present literature and clinical experience are summarized to give an overview of the present best practice in pancreatic surgery as one of the most advanced surgical disciplines today.

RESULTS

Based on the available literature, three important aspects contribute to best patient care in pancreatic surgery, namely, surgical progress, interdisciplinary complication management, and multimodal oncological treatment in case of pancreatic cancer. In addition, minimally invasive and robotic procedures are currently fields of development and specific topics of research.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, pancreatic surgery-despite being one of the most challenging fields of surgery-is a safe domain today. The impact of multimodal, especially adjuvant, therapy for oncological indications is well established and evidence-based. New technologies are evolving and will be evaluated with high-evidence studies in the near future.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

Evaluation of factors predicting loss of benefit provided by laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared to open approach

Several studies showed safety and feasibility of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Patients who underwent LDP or ODP (2015-2019) were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias. Aim of this study was to identify those factors influencing the loss of benefit (defined as a significantly better outcome compared to ODP) after LDP. Overall, 387 patients underwent DP (n = 250 LDP, n = 137 ODP). After PSM, 274 patients (n = 137 LDP, n = 137 ODP) were selected. LDP was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss (median: 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p < 0.001), decreased wound infection rate (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.044) and shorter time to functional recovery (TFR) (median: 4 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.002). Consequently, TFR > 5 days and blood loss > 250 mL were defined as loss of benefit after LDP. In the LDP group, age > 70 years [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.744, p = 0.022] and duration of surgery > 208 min (OR 2.957, p = 0.019) were predictors of TFR > 5 days and intraoperative blood loss > 250 mL, respectively. No differences in terms of TFR were found between ODP and LDP groups in patients > 70 years (p = 0.102). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the ODP group, also when the analysis was limited to surgical procedures with operative time > 208 min (p = 0.003). In conclusion, LDP seems comparable to ODP in terms of TFR in patients aged > 70 years. This finding could be helpful in the choice of the best surgical approach in elderly patients undergoing potentially challenging DPs.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Antegrade Modular Pancreatosplenectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) was introduced to improve the tangential resection margin rates and N1 node clearance following resection of malignancies of the pancreatic body and tail. Owing to its technical complexity, minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS) has only been reported by a few centers worldwide. We performed this meta-analysis to compare both short- and long-term outcomes between open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) and minimally invasive RAMPS (MI-RAMPS).

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed to identify eligible studies published in the English language regardless of study design. The outcomes of interest were operation time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, overall complications, Grade B/C post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), length of stay (LOS), R0 resection rates, lymph node (LN) yield and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Five non-randomized studies comprising of a total 229 patients (89 MI-RAMPS, 140 O-RAMPS) were included for analysis. Intra-operative blood loss was observed to be significantly reduced in MI-RAMPS as compared to O-RAMPS (MD -256.16, P < 0.001), while LN yield was higher in O-RAMPS as compared to MI-RAMPS (MD -2.73, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences observed for the other perioperative, oncologic and survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides early evidence to suggest that MI-RAMPS may produce comparable short- and long-term outcomes to O-RAMPS, when undertaken by appropriately skilled surgeons in well-selected patients. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to corroborate these findings.

Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer 2021: A summary of evidence-based, multi-disciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approaches

Pancreatic cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related death in Korea. To enable standardization of management and facilitate improvements in outcome, a total of 53 multi-disciplinary experts in gastroenterology, surgery, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and pathology in Korea developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date, evidence-based research findings and expert opinions. Recommendations were made on imaging diagnosis, endoscopic management, surgery, radiotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, and specific management procedures, including neoadjuvant treatment or adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. This is the English version of the Korean clinical practice guideline for pancreatic cancer 2021. This guideline includes 20 clinical questions and 32 statements. This guideline represents the most standard guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in adults at this time in Korea. The authors believe that this guideline will provide useful and informative advice.

Reduction in post-operative pancreatic fistula with polyethylene glycol and recombinant human albumin sealant following stapled distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a significant cause of morbidity in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and recombinant human albumin sealant gel applied to the transected pancreatic margin in DP may reduce POPF rates and was assessed.

METHODS

A retrospective single centre cohort study of patient undergoing DP at an Australian high volume tertiary institution between January 2015 and January 2021. Rates of POPF in patients undergoing stapled pancreatic transection with PEG sealant were compared to other methods.

RESULTS

A total of 54 cases were identified for analysis, with 16 undergoing stapled DP combined with staple line application of PEG (PEG group). Most patients in the control group had stapled DP 92% (35 of 38), with 47% (18 of 38) combined with a reinforcing buttress, with or without the use other glue types. Overall, 28 of 54 (52%) developed a POPF, with a significantly lower rate in the PEG group (3 of 16 vs. 25 of 38 in the Control group; p = 0.003). Clinically significant Grade B/C POPF was lower in the PEG group (0 of 16 vs. 9 of 28 in the Control group; p = 0.045), and patients in the PEG group had a shorter median (range) length of hospital stay (6 [4-14] days vs. 10 [6-41] days p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Stapled DP with the application of PEG and recombinant human albumin sealant to the transection line appears to be associated with a lower rate of clinically significant POPF.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.

Methods/design

DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265. Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where do we stand?

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation accompanied by significant morbidity rates. Due to this complexity, the transition to minimally invasive PD has lagged behind other abdominal surgical operations. The safety, feasibility, favorable post-operative outcomes of robotic PD have been suggested by multiple studies. Compared to open surgery and other minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy, robotic PD offers satisfactory outcomes, with a non-inferior risk of adverse events. Trends of robotic PD have been on rise with centers substantially increasing the number the operation performed. Although promising, findings on robotic PD need to be corroborated in prospective trials.

Robotic pancreas surgery: an overview of history and update on technique, outcomes, and financials

The use robotics in surgery is gaining momentum. This approach holds substantial promise in pancreas surgery. Robotic surgery for pancreatic lesions and malignancies has become well accepted and is expanding to more and more center annually. The number of centers using robotics in pancreatic surgery is rapidly increasing. The most studied robotic pancreas surgeries are pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Most studies are in their early phases, but they report that robotic pancreas surgery is safe feasible. Robotic pancreas surgery offers several advantages over open and laparoscopic techniques. Data regarding costs of robotics versus conventional techniques is still lacking. Robotic pancreas surgery is still in its early stages. It holds promise to become the new surgical standard for pancreatic resections in the future, however, more research is still needed to establish its safety, cost effectiveness and efficacy in providing the best outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition.

METHODS

A systemic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted using the PRISMA framework. Studies were evaluated for risk factors for the development CR-POPF after DP using the 2016 ISGPF definition. Further subgroup analysis was undertaken on studies ≥10 patients in exposed and non-exposed subgroups.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies with 8864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted rate of CR-POPF was 20.4% (95%-CI: 17.7-23.4%). Smoking (OR 1.29, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.53, p = 0.02) and open DP (OR 1.43, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.01, p = 0.04) were found to be significant risk factors of CR-POPF. Diabetes (OR 0.81, 95%-CI: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.02) was a significant protective factor against CR-POPF. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the comparisons of pancreatic texture and body mass index. Seventeen risk factors achieved significance in a univariate or multivariate comparison as reported by individual studies in the narrative synthesis, however, they remain difficult to interpret as statistically significant comparisons were not uniform.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found smoking and open DP to be risk factors and diabetes to be protective factor of CR-POPF in the era of 2016 ISGPF definition.

Efficacy of the slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

PURPOSE

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most clinically relevant complication of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The present study evaluated the efficacy of the "slow firing method" using a reinforced triple-row stapler (Covidien, Tokyo, Japan) during LDP.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 73 consecutive patients who underwent LDP using the slow firing method. A black cartridge was used in all patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) after LDP. Secondary endpoints included perioperative outcomes and factors associated with CR-POPF as well as the correlation between the transection time and thickness of the pancreas.

RESULTS

Four patients (5.5%) developed CR-POPF (grade B). Overall morbidity rates, defined as grade ≥ II and ≥ III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, were 21 and 11%, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 10 days. Preoperative diabetes (13.6 vs. 0.2%, P = 0.044) and thickness of the pancreas ≥ 15 mm (13.8% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) were identified as independent risk factors for CR-POPF. The median transection time was 16 (8-29) min.

CONCLUSION

The slow firing method using a reinforced triple-row stapler for pancreatic transection is simple, safe, and effective for preventing CR-POPF after LDP.

The Current Treatment Paradigm for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Barriers to Therapeutic Efficacy

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis, with a median survival time of 10-12 months. Clinically, these poor outcomes are attributed to several factors, including late stage at the time of diagnosis impeding resectability, as well as multi-drug resistance. Despite the high prevalence of drug-resistant phenotypes, nearly all patients are offered chemotherapy leading to modest improvements in postoperative survival. However, chemotherapy is all too often associated with toxicity, and many patients elect for palliative care. In cases of inoperable disease, cytotoxic therapies are less efficacious but still carry the same risk of serious adverse effects, and clinical outcomes remain particularly poor. Here we discuss the current state of pancreatic cancer therapy, both surgical and medical, and emerging factors limiting the efficacy of both. Combined, this review highlights an unmet clinical need to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the poor therapeutic responses seen in patients with PDAC, in hopes of increasing drug efficacy, extending patient survival, and improving quality of life.

[Surgery for periampullary pancreatic cancer]

Periampulläre Neoplasien sind eine heterogene Gruppe verschiedener Tumorentitäten der periampullären Region, von denen das Pankreasadenokarzinom mit 60–70 % am häufigsten ist. Wie typisch für Pankreaskarzinome zeichnen sich periampulläre Pankreaskarzinome durch ein aggressives Wachstum und eine frühe systemische Progression aus. Aufgrund ihrer besonderen Lage in unmittelbarer Nähe zur Papilla Vateri treten Symptome in eher früherem Tumorstadium auf, sodass die Therapiemöglichkeiten und Prognose insgesamt günstiger sind als bei Pankreaskarzinomen anderer Lokalisation. Trotzdem unterscheiden sich die Therapieprinzipien bei periampullären Pankreaskarzinomen nicht wesentlich von den Standards bei Pankreaskarzinomen anderer Lokalisation. Ein potenziell kurativer Therapieansatz beim nichtmetastasierten periampullären Pankreaskarzinom ist multimodal und besteht aus der Durchführung einer partiellen Duodenopankreatektomie als radikale onkologische Resektion in Kombination mit einer systemischen, meist adjuvant verabreichten Chemotherapie. Bei Patienten mit günstigen prognostischen Faktoren kann hierdurch ein Langzeitüberleben erzielt werden. Zudem wurden mit der Weiterentwicklung der Chirurgie und Systemtherapie auch potenziell kurative Therapiekonzepte für fortgeschrittene, früher irresektable Tumoren etabliert, welche nun nach Durchführung einer neoadjuvanten Therapie oft einer Resektion zugeführt werden können. In diesem Beitrag werden die aktuellen chirurgischen Prinzipien der radikalen onkologischen Resektion periampullärer Pankreaskarzinome im Kontext der multimodalen Therapie dargestellt und ein Ausblick auf mögliche künftige Entwicklungen der Therapie gegeben.

The Robotic Spleen Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy Under Temporary Splenic Artery Occlusion: the Royal North Shore Technique

There are numerous advantages of splenic vessel preservation in performing the minimally invasive spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy. Dissection along the splenic artery, and a medial to lateral dissection of the splenic vein, is associated with high risk of injury and bleeding. Proximal control of the splenic artery with vessel loops, which require tightening or adjustment with the advent of distal bleeding, is inefficient. Instead, a modified technique (the Royal North Shore Technique), whereby a vascular clamp is placed on the splenic artery, reduces splenic artery inflow and indirectly, splenic vein returns. This allows for more accurate and injury-free dissection of the now non-distended splenic vein and the associated tributaries, and maintains a relatively bloodless field in the event of arterial injury.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Propensity-Matched Analysis to Open and Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

INTRODUCTION

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is slowly gaining acceptance within pancreatic surgery. Advantages have been demonstrated for robotic surgery in other fields, but robust data for pancreaticoduodenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD).

METHODS

Patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2011 and July 2019 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital were included in this retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The RPD cohort was matched to patients who underwent OPD in a 1:2 fashion and LPD in a 1:1 fashion. Short-term outcomes were analyzed for all three cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 1644 patients were included, of which 96 (5.8%) underwent RPD, 131 (8.0%) LPD, and 1417 (86.2%) OPD. RPD was associated with a decreased incidence of delayed gastric emptying (9.4%) compared to OPD (23.5%; P = 0.006). The median estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RPD cohort (RPD vs OPD, 150 vs 487 mL; P < 0.001, RPD vs LPD, 125 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001). Compared to OPD, the robotic approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (median 8 vs 9 days; P = 0.014) and a decrease in wound complications (4.2% vs 16.7%; P = 0.002). The incidence of other postoperative complications was comparable between RPD and OPD, and RPD and LPD.

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced surgeons, RPD may have a modest yet statistically significant reduction in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, wound complications, and delayed gastric emptying comparing to OPD in similar patients.

Procedure-specific Training for Robot-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To train practicing surgeons in robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and assess the impact on 5 domains of healthcare quality.

BACKGROUND

RADP may reduce the treatment burden compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), but studies on institutional training and implementation programs are scarce.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study evaluating surgical performance during a procedure-specific training program for RADP (January 2006 to September 2017). Baseline and unadjusted outcomes were compared "before training" (ODP only; June 2012). Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy, vascular- and unrelated organ resection. Run charts evaluated index length of stay (LOS) and 90-day comprehensive complication index. Cumulative sum charts of operating time (OT) assessed institutional learning. Adjusted outcomes after RADP versus ODP were compared using a secondary propensity-score-matched (1:1) analysis to determine clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

After screening, 237 patients were included in the before-training (133 ODP) and after-training (24 ODP, 80 RADP) groups. After initiation of training, mean perioperative blood loss decreased (-255 mL, P<0.001), OT increased (+65 min, P < 0.001), and median LOS decreased (-1 day, P < 0.001). All other outcomes remained similar (P>0.05). Over time, there were nonrandom (P < 0.05) downward shifts in LOS, while comprehensive complication index was unaffected. We observed 3 learning curve phases in OT: accumulation (<31 cases), optimization (case 31-65), and a steady-state (>65 cases). Propensity-score-matching confirmed reductions in index and 90-day LOS and blood loss with similar morbidity between RADP and ODP.

CONCLUSION

Supervised procedure-specific training enabled successful implementation of RADP by practicing surgeons with immediate improvements in length of stay, without adverse effects on safety.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (L-RAMPS) with those of open RAMPS (O-RAMPS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We reviewed, retrospectively, the medical records of 50 patients who underwent RAMPS for PDAC without resection of major vessels and adjacent organs between 2007 and 2019, and analyzed the relationship between the operative method and surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 50 patients underwent L-RAMPS and 31 patients underwent O-RAMPS. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly less blood loss (P = 0.034) but a longer operative time (P = 0.001) than O-RAMPS. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, tumor factors, or postoperative course; or in the rates of recurrence-free survival (P = 0.084) or overall survival (P = 0.402) between the L-RAMPS and O-RAMPS groups.

CONCLUSION

L-RAMPS for PDAC resulted in less blood loss but a longer operative time than O-RAMPS. Although L-RAMPS may be feasible, the operative time needs to be reduced by standardizing the procedure.

Does a Laparoscopic Approach to Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer Contribute to Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy Utilization?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open approaches (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with reduced morbidity, its impact on optimal adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) utilization remains unclear. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether oncologic resection quality markers are equivalent between approaches.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried between 2010 and 2016 for PDAC patients undergoing DP. Effect of LDP vs ODP and institutional case volumes on margin status, hospital stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality, administration of and delay to AC, and 30-day unplanned readmission were analyzed using binary and linear logistic regression. Cox multivariable regression was used to correct for confounders.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3411 patients; 996 (29.2%) had LDP and 2415 (70.8%) had ODP. ODP had higher odds of readmission [odds ratio (OR) 1.681, p = 0.01] and longer hospital stay [β 1.745, p = 0.004]. No difference was found for 30-day mortality [OR 1.689, p = 0.303], 90-day mortality [OR 1.936, p = 0.207], and overall survival [HR 1.231, p = 0.057]. The highest-volume centers had improved odds of AC [OR 1.275, p = 0.027] regardless of approach. LDP conferred lower margin positivity [OR 0.581, p = 0.005], increased AC use [3rd quartile: OR 1.844, p = 0.026; 4th quartile; OR 2.144, p = 0.045], and fewer AC delays [4th quartile: OR 0.786, p = 0.045] in higher-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, LDP offers an oncologically safe alternative to ODP for PDAC independent of institutional volume. However, additional oncologic benefit due to optimal AC utilization and lower positive margin rates in higher volume centers suggests that LDP by experienced teams can achieve best possible cancer outcomes.

Assessment of difficulty in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A modification of the Japanese difficulty scoring system - A single-center high-volume experience

Background

The Japanese difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). The study aimed to validate a modified DSS (mDSS) in a European high‐volume center.

Methods

Patients' clinical data underwent LDP for benign and malignant pancreatic lesion between September 2013 and February 2020 were reviewed. Expert laparoscopic surgeons performed the procedures. The mDSS consisted of seven variables, such as type of operation, malignancy, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic resection line, tumor close to major vessels, tumor extension to peripancreatic tissue, and left‐sided portal hypertension and/or splenomegaly. According to the difficulty level and previous score, the mDSS was subdivided into three classes: low, intermediate, and high. Surrogates of case complexity (operative time, intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion requirements, conversion rate) were used to validate the new scoring system.

Results

The study population included 140 LDP. Ninety‐five (68%), 35 (25%) and 10 (7%) patients belonged to low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups. The mDSS identified the complexity of the surgical case of the series for all the surrogates of complexity considered, namely conversion rate (P = .004), operative time (P = .033) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .009). No differences were recorded in the postoperative outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusion

The mDSS for LDP better stratified the pancreatic procedures according to their complexity. The new scoring system may allow an appropriate preoperative evaluation of surgical difficulty, facilitating LDP's training program. Future prospective studies are needed to validate the mDSS.

Comparison of perioperative short-term outcomes and oncologic long-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Purpose

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is widely performed but its efficacy and safety are not established for malignant lesions. This study was aimed to compare outcomes of LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Methods

Patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for PDAC between 2009 and 2017 were enrolled. The preoperative clinical stage was evaluated and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using age, sex, The American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th clinical T stage, and other organ involvement.

Results

In 186 patients enrolled, 35 (18.8%) received LDP. The ODP group showed larger tumor size and frequent involvement of other organs in preoperative images. However, after PSM, these differences were balanced. R0 resection (90.5% vs. 94.3%, P = 0.730), harvested lymph nodes (14.3 vs. 12.6, P = 0.380) and pathologic T stage (P = 0.474) were comparable between ODP and LDP groups, respectively. LDP demonstrated shorter operation time, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization (14.4 days vs. 11.1 days, P = 0.026). In terms of long-term oncologic outcomes, median overall survival (32 months vs. 28 months, P = 0.724) and disease-free survival (18 months vs. 19 months, P = 0.926) were comparable.

Conclusion

LDP demonstrated better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared with ODP. LDP is a safe and feasible procedure for PDAC.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP.

METHODS

A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above).

RESULTS

A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Simple Summary

Surgery is the only potential cure for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and should always be combined with adjuvant chemotherapy or other multimodal treatment. Besides the advances in such multimodal approaches, there has been substantial progress in surgical techniques to especially address advanced resections. These techniques include specific operative steps, such as ‘artery first’ or ‘uncinate first’ approaches as well as techniques that allow safe vascular resection and reconstruction to achieve radical tumor removal. Most recently, also minimally-invasive and robotic approaches have been adopted for pancreatic cancer surgery; however, there is no high-level evidence on these evolving techniques especially with regards to long-term results compared to conventional surgical techniques.

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents an aggressive tumor of the digestive system with still low five-year survival of less than 10%. Although there are improvements for multimodal therapy of PDAC, surgery still remains the effective way to treat the disease. Combined with adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment, pancreatic surgery is able to enhance the five-year survival up to around 20%. However, pancreatic resection is always associated with a high risk of complications and regarded as one of the most complex fields in abdominal surgery. This review gives a summary on the surgical treatment for PDAC based on the current literature with a special focus on resection techniques.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents an aggressive tumor of the digestive system with still low five-year survival of less than 10%. Although there are improvements for multimodal therapy of PDAC, surgery still remains the effective way to treat the disease. Combined with adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant treatment, pancreatic surgery is able to enhance the five-year survival up to around 20%. However, pancreatic resection is always associated with a high risk of complications and regarded as one of the most complex fields in abdominal surgery. This review gives a summary on the surgical treatment for PDAC based on the current literature with a special focus on resection techniques.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP).

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis

The laparoscopic approach is considered as standard practice in patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms. However, only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching (PSM) studies have been performed. Thus, additional studies are needed to obtain more robust evidence. This is a single-centre propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent laparoscopic (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) with splenectomy for pancreatic neoplasms. Demographic, intra, postoperative and oncological data were collected. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the operative findings, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes (only in the subset of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-PDAC) and total costs. In total, 205 patients were analysed: 105 (51.2%) undergoing an open approach and 100 (48.8%) a laparoscopic approach. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 75 patients were analysed and showed a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.001), a lower blood loss (P = 0.032), a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) and decreased total costs (P = 0.050) after LDP with respect to ODP. Regarding the subset of patients with PDAC, 22 patients were analysed: they showed a significant shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.050) and a reduction in postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) after LDP with respect to ODP. Oncological outcomes were similar. LDP showed lower hospital stay and postoperative morbidity rate than ODP both in the entire population and in patients affected by PDAC. Total costs were reduced only in the entire population. Oncological outcomes were comparable in PDAC patients.

Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey

BACKGROUND

The recent Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) advise all centers that perform MIPS to participate in multicenter registries to safeguard optimal outcomes and patient safety. During the design phase of a pan-European registry on MIPS, the European consortium of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) sought input from European HPB surgeons.

METHODS

An anonymous online questionnaire with 23 questions on MIPS practice was sent to all member centers of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and E-MIPS.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were obtained from 98 centers in 23 countries, of which 75 (76.5%) were academic centers. Centers had a median annual pancreatoduodenectomy volume of 45. The most-performed MIPS procedure was laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (93.9% of centers). Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 49% of all centers. Some 25 centers already participated in an ongoing national registry, and were willing to share their data with the European registry on MIPS. The most mentioned (45.4%) maximum time for processing one patient's data into the registry was 10-15 min.

CONCLUSION

This European survey showed considerable support for the European registry on MIPS.

National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers.

DISCUSSION

Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.

Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1: Latest Insights

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), a rare tumor syndrome that is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, is continuing to raise great interest for endocrinology, gastroenterology, surgery, radiology, genetics, and molecular biology specialists. There have been 2 major clinical practice guidance papers published in the past 2 decades, with the most recent published 8 years ago. Since then, several new insights on the basic biology and clinical features of MEN1 have appeared in the literature, and those data are discussed in this review. The genetic and molecular interactions of the MEN1-encoded protein menin with transcription factors and chromatin-modifying proteins in cell signaling pathways mediated by transforming growth factor β/bone morphogenetic protein, a few nuclear receptors, Wnt/β-catenin, and Hedgehog, and preclinical studies in mouse models have facilitated the understanding of the pathogenesis of MEN1-associated tumors and potential pharmacological interventions. The advancements in genetic diagnosis have offered a chance to recognize MEN1-related conditions in germline MEN1 mutation-negative patients. There is rapidly accumulating knowledge about clinical presentation in children, adolescents, and pregnancy that is translatable into the management of these very fragile patients. The discoveries about the genetic and molecular signatures of sporadic neuroendocrine tumors support the development of clinical trials with novel targeted therapies, along with advancements in diagnostic tools and surgical approaches. Finally, quality of life studies in patients affected by MEN1 and related conditions represent an effort necessary to develop a pharmacoeconomic interpretation of the problem. Because advances are being made both broadly and in focused areas, this timely review presents and discusses those studies collectively.

Minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) versus open approach for central pancreatectomies: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

There continues to be an interest in minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic surgery. At our institution, there has been a progressive change from an open to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (laparoscopic, robotic, or laparoscopic-robotic) approach for central pancreatectomies (CP). The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes with open CP (O-CP) versus minimally invasive CP (MI-CP).

METHODS

A retrospective medical review of patients who underwent CP between 1993 and 2018 at Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea was performed. Short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between O-CP and MI-CP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CPs (11 open, 20 MIS) were identified during the study period. No difference was observed in admission days between O-CP and MI-CP (21.2 vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.340), although operating time was significantly increased in the MI-CP group (296.8 vs. 374.8 min, p = 0.036). Blood loss was significantly less in MI-CP vs. O-CP (807.1 vs. 214.0 mls, p = 0.001), with no difference in post-operative new-onset diabetes (9% vs. 5%). The overall post-operative pancreatic fistula rate was 25.8%, and no significant difference between O-CP and MI-CP or complication rates (45% vs. 40%) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased operative time, MI-CP is feasible and comparable to conventional O-CP with regard to surgical outcomes in well-selected patients.

Division of the pancreas at the neck reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula in laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Comparison of pancreatic division at the body

BACKGROUND

objectives: During laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), the optimal site for pancreatic division with consideration of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is unclear. We evaluate which site of pancreatic division, neck or body, has better outcomes after LDP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study. LDP was performed in 102 consecutive patients between December 2009 and May 2020. After excluding 14 patients with pancreatic division at tail, 88 patients (pancreatic division at neck n = 46, at body n = 42) were included in this study. Short- and long-term outcomes after LDP were compared between pancreatic division at neck and body.

RESULTS

The pancreatic transection site was thicker at body than at neck (17.5 vs. 11.9 mm, P < 0.001), although there were no significant differences of pancreatic texture and pancreatic duct size. The Grade B/C POPF rate was significantly higher when the pancreas was divided at body than when divided at neck (21.4 vs. 6.5%, P = 0.042). We found no significant differences between pancreatic division at neck and body in residual pancreatic volume (34.0 vs. 34.8 ml, P = 0.855), incidence of new-onset or worsening diabetes mellitus more than six months after LDP (P = 0.218), or body weight change (six-month: P = 0.116, one-year: P = 0.108, two-year: P = 0.195, tree-year: P = 0.131, four-year: P = 0.608, five-year: P = 0.408).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the pancreatic division at neck might reduce the Grade B/C POPF incidence after LDP, compared to division at body. A potential reason is that the pancreas at body is thicker than that at neck. However, further large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been suggested to reduce postoperative outcomes as compared to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Recently, the first randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIDP to ODP were published. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared outcomes after MIDP versus ODP combining data from both RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs on MIDP vs. ODP, and individual patient data were harmonized. Primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) complications. Sensitivity analyses were performed in high-risk subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients from the LEOPARD and LAPOP RCTs were included. The rate of major complications was 21% after MIDP vs. 35% after ODP (adjusted odds ratio 0.54; p = 0.148). MIDP significantly reduced length of hospital stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036), and delayed gastric emptying (4% vs. 16%, p = 0.049), as compared to ODP. A trend towards higher rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was observed after MIDP (36% vs. 28%, p = 0.067). Outcomes were comparable in high-risk subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that MIDP, when performed by trained surgeons, may be regarded as the preferred approach for distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes are improved after MIDP as compared to ODP, without obvious downsides in high-risk subgroups.