Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

Ideal outcome post-pancreatoduodenectomy: a comprehensive healthcare system analysis

INTRODUCTION

Indicators, such as mortality and complications, are commonly used to measure the quality of care. However, a more comprehensive assessment of surgical quality is captured using composite outcome measures such as Textbook Outcome (TO), Optimal Pancreatic Surgery, and a newer 'Ideal Outcome' (IO) measure. We reviewed our institutional experience to assess the impact of demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables on IO after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on PD patients at Northwell Health between 2009 and 2023. IO was determined by the absence of six adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, clinically-relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, reoperation, hospital stay > 75th percentile, and readmission within 30 days. Logistic regression analyzed the effects of various factors on achieving IO.

RESULTS

Of the 578 patients who underwent PD, 248 (42.91%) achieved the IO. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with increased odds of achieving IO included neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62) and the presence of neuroendocrine tumors (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.35-8.41). Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.80) and older age (≥ 70 years) (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.74) were associated with decreased odds of achieving IO. Patients with IO had significantly improved survival on Kaplan-Meier log-rank test (p = 0.001) as well as adjusted Cox analysis (HR 0.62 95% CI: 0.39-0.97).

CONCLUSION

IO may offer a comprehensive metric for assessing PD outcomes, highlighting the impact of age, chemotherapy, biliary drainage, and tumor types. These findings suggest targeted interventions and quality improvements could enhance PD outcomes by addressing modifiable factors and refining clinical strategies.

Tackling challenges in rare diseases: The ISGACA approach on non-pancreatic cancers in the periampullary region

OBJECTIVE

Rare but aggressive cancer types like non-pancreatic periampullary cancers pose unique challenges for cancer research due to their low incidence rates and lack of consensus on optimal treatment strategies, therefore necessitating a collaborative approach. The International Study Group on non-pancreatic peri-Ampullary CAncer (ISGACA) aimed to build a collaborative initiative to pool expertise, funding opportunities, and data from over 60 medical centers, in order to improve outcomes for underrepresented patients with rare cancers.

METHODS

The ISGACA approach predefined a stepwise approach including a research scope, establishing a dedicated steering committee, creating a recognizable brand, identifying research gaps, following a well-defined timeline, ensuring robust data collection, addressing legal and ethical considerations, securing financial resources, investing in research ethics training and statistical expertise, raising awareness, creating uniformity, and initiating prospective studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 medical centers joined the ISGACA consortium (41 in Europe, 15 in North-America, three in Asia, one in Australia). The database includes 4309 patients. Nine publications and several ongoing studies which in turn allowed for a successful application of research grants. Subsequently, an international consensus meeting established uniform definitions and classifications, and one prospective multicenter international clinical trial has been initiated.

CONCLUSION

By sharing knowledge, expertise, and clinical data, the ISGACA approach has not only gathered sufficient evidence to secure grants and ethical approvals for prospective studies, but also demonstrates options for standardizing patient care and improving outcomes for patients with rare cancers. The ISGACA approach offers a detailed methodology for initiating research on rare cancers and could serve as a replicable model for future research initiatives.

Open vs robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted vs open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening identified 16 studies that were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI, 0.805-1.096; P = .42), mortality (95% CI, 0.599-1.123; P = .21), and readmission (95% CI, 0.959-1.211; P = .20) among patients undergoing open vs robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI, 1.020-1.233) and higher costs (95% CI, 0.134-1.139; P = .013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI, -0.353 to 0.189; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

Oncological Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ductal Adenocarcinomas of Pancreatic Head: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have been shown to be safe and feasible, but there is still a lack of high-level evidence on oncological outcomes for cephalic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing MIPR and open pancreatic resection (OPR) for pancreatic head cancer in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent radical-intent surgery for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC of the head at our institution between January 2013 and May 2023 were retrieved and analyzed, comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPR and OPR, using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

In the study period, 220 patients were selected. After matching, a total of 81 MIPRs and 81 OPRs were compared. No difference was found regarding R0 rate (OPR 83.9% vs. MIPR 74.1%, p = 0.122). Median overall survival (24 and 31 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.665) and disease-free survival (12 and 21 months for the OPR and MIPR groups, respectively; log rank p = 0.118) did not differ between the groups. The MIPR group was associated with a greater number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs. 16, p = 0.0008), longer operative time (565 vs. 420 min, p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (12 vs. 18 days; p = 0.0001). No differences between the groups were found regarding all other postoperative and pathological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding oncological outcomes, MIPR appeared to be comparable to OPR for treating patients with PDAC of the head. Despite an increased operative time, MIPR was associated with a greater number of LNs harvested and a shorter length of stay.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as an alternative to open technique in treating periampullary tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) remain unclear. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors, with a particular focus on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient subgroup.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors. Endpoints and sensitive analysis were conducted for short-term endpoints. All statistical analysis was performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs yielding 1018 patients with periampullary tumors were included, of whom 511 (50.2%) were randomized to the LPD group. Total follow-up time was 90 days. LPD was associated with a longer operation time (MD 66.75; 95% CI 26.59 to 106.92; p = 0.001; I2 = 87%; Fig. 1A), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 124.05; 95% CI - 178.56 to - 69.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 86%; Fig. 1B), and shorter length of stay (MD - 1.37; 95% IC - 2.31 to - 0.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 14%; Fig. 1C) as compared with OPD. In terms of 90-day mortality rates and number of lymph nodes yield, no significant differences were found between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LPD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with periampullary tumors, with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of stay.

Extended pancreatic neck transection versus conventional pancreatic neck transection during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPDEXCEPT): protocol for a multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains one of the most severe complications of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Theoretically, transecting the pancreatic neck more distally has both advantages (more blood supply, and more central pancreatic duct) and disadvantages (maybe smaller the pancreatic duct) in preventing POPF. This theoretical contradiction pushed us to organise this trial to explore the impact of the level of pancreatic transection in clinical practice. We conduct this randomised trial with the hypothesis that extended pancreatic neck transection has superiority to conventional pancreatic neck transection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The LPDEXCEPT (Extended pancreatic neck transection versus conventional pancreatic neck transection during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy) trial is a multicentre, randomised-controlled, open-label, superiority trial in 4 centres whose annual surgical volume for LPD is more than 25 cases with pancreatic surgeons who had completed their learning curve. A total of 154 patients who meet the inclusive and exclusive criteria are randomly allocated to the extended pancreatic neck transection group or conventional pancreatic neck transection group in a 1:1 ratio. The stratified randomised block design will be applied, with stratified factors are surgical centre and the diameter of the main pancreatic duct measured by preoperative CT scan (preMPD). The primary outcome is the incidence of the clinically relevant pancreatic fistula.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics Committee on Biomedical Research of West China Hospital of Sichuan University has approved this trial in March 2023 (approval no. 2023-167). Results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05808894.