Extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: a prospective randomized single center trial

[Better Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer through More Radical Surgery?]

Despite advances in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, the survival of affected patients remains limited. A more radical surgical therapy could help to improve the prognosis, in particular by reducing the local recurrence rate, which is around 45% in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. In addition, patients with oligometastatic pancreatic cancer could also benefit from a more radical indication for surgery.Based on an analysis of the literature, important principles of pancreatic cancer surgery were examined.Even if even more radical surgical approaches such as an "extended" lymphadenectomy or a standard complete pancreatectomy do not bring any survival advantage, complete resection of the tumour (R0), a thorough locoregional lymphadenectomy and an adequate radical dissection in the area of the peripancreatic vessels including periarterial nerve plexuses should be the standard of pancreatic carcinoma resections. Whenever necessary to achieve an R0 resection, resections of the pancreas have to be extended, as well as additional venous vascular resections and multivisceral resections had to be performed. Simultaneous arterial vascular resections as part of pancreatic resections as well as surgical resections in oligometastatic patients should, however, be reserved for selected patients. These aspects of the surgical technique in pancreatic carcinoma mentioned above must not be neglected from the point of view of an "existing limited prognosis". On the contrary, they form the absolutely necessary basis in order to achieve good survival results in combination with system therapy. However, it may always be necessary to adapt these standards according to the age, comorbidities and wishes of the patient.

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.

Extended lymph node resection versus standard resection for pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinomas account for some of the most aggressive malignancies, and the leading causes of cancer-related mortalities. Partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with negative resection margins is the only potentially curative therapy. The high prevalence of lymph node metastases has led to the hypothesis that wider excision with the removal of more lymphatic tissue could result in an improvement of survival, and higher rates of negative resection margins.

OBJECTIVES

To compare overall survival following standard (SLA) versus extended lymph lymphadenectomy (ELA) for pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma. We also compared secondary outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and tumour involvement of the resection margins between the two procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from 1973 to September 2020; we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing PD with SLA versus PD with ELA, including participants with pancreatic head and periampullary adenocarcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from study reports. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for most binary outcomes except for postoperative mortality, for which we estimated a Peto odds ratio (Peto OR), and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model in the absence of substantial heterogeneity (I² < 25%), and a random-effects model in cases of substantial heterogeneity (I² > 25%). Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, and we used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies with 843 participants (421 ELA and 422 SLA). All seven studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. There was little or no difference in survival between groups (log hazard ratio (log HR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.06 to 3.31; P = 0.94; seven studies, 843 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in postoperative mortality between the groups (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.80; seven studies, 843 participants; low-quality evidence). Operating time was probably longer for ELA (mean difference (MD) 50.13 minutes, 95% CI 19.19 to 81.06 minutes; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 88%; P < 0.00001). There may have been more blood loss during ELA (MD 137.43 mL, 95% CI 11.55 to 263.30 mL; two studies, 463 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P = 0.02). There may have been more lymph nodes retrieved during ELA (MD 11.09 nodes, 95% CI 7.16 to 15.02; five studies, 670 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 81%, P < 0.00001). There was little or no difference in the incidence of positive resection margins between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.13; six studies, 783 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of an impact on survival with extended versus standard lymph node resection. However, the operating time may have been longer and blood loss greater in the extended resection group. In conclusion, current evidence neither supports nor refutes the effect of extended lymph lymphadenectomy in people with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas.