Reduced morbidity with minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Vitamin E protects against the modulation of TNF-α-AMPK axis and inhibits pancreas injury in a rat model of L-arginine-induced acute necrotising pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) associated with the modulation of TNF-α-AMPK axis in the presence and absence of vitamin E has not been investigated before.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Rats were either injected with L-arginine (2.5 gm/kg) before being sacrificed after 48 h or were pre-treated with vitamin E (60 mg/kg) and continued receiving vitamin E until the end of the experiment.

RESULTS

AP was developed as demonstrated by infiltration of inflammatory cells and profound pancreas tissue damage, which were substantially protected by vitamin E. In addition, L-arginine injections significantly (p < .0001) increased the expression of TNF-α mRNA and protein, and decreased phospho-AMPK and IL-10 mRNA and protein that was significantly (p < .0001) protected by vitamin E. Furthermore, vitamin E inhibited L-arginine-induced blood levels of LDH, amylase, and myeloperoxidase.

CONCLUSIONS

L-arginine-induced acute pancreatitis modulates TNF-α-AMPK axis, IL-10 and other AP biomarkers, which is protected by vitamin E; thus, may offer therapeutic potential in humans.

Preoperative serum CA19-9 predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula in PDAC patients: retrospective analysis at a single institution

Background

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a critical complication of pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recent papers reported that serum carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 levels predicted long-term prognosis. We investigated whether preoperative serum CA19-9 levels were associated with POPF in PDAC patients.

Methods

This cohort study was conducted at a single institution retrospectively. Clinicopathologic features were determined using medical records.

Results

Among of 196 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatectomy against PDAC, 180 patients whose CA19-9 levels were above the measurement sensitivity, were registered in this study. The patients consisted of 122 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and 58 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy. Several clinicopathological factors, including CA 19-9 level, as well as surgical factors were determined retrospectively based on the medical records. Patients with high CA19-9 levels had a significantly higher incidence of POPF than those with low levels (43.9 vs. 13.0%, P < 0.0001). The receiver operating characteristic curves calculated that the cutoff CA19-9 value to predict POPF was 428 U/mL. CA19-9, BMI, curability, and histology were statistically significant risk factors for POPF by univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that CA19-9 and BMI levels were statistically significant independent risk factors for POPF. CA19-9 levels were correlated with both histology and curability. Disease free survival and overall survival of patients with higher levels of CA19-9 were significantly shorter than that of patients with lower levels of preoperative serum CA19-9.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing pancreatectomy for PDAC, higher preoperative CA19-9 levels are a significant predictor for POPF.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01825-3.

Progression from biochemical leak to pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy. Don't cry over spilt amylase

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a frequent complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP), but its upgrading from biochemical leak (BL) still represents an unexplored phenomenon. This study aims at identifying risk factors of the clinical evolution from BL to grade-B POPF after DP.

METHODS

Patients who underwent DP between 2015 and 2019 and who developed either BL (n = 89,56%) or BL upgraded to late B fistula (LB) after postoperative day 5 (n = 71,44%) were included. Preoperative, surgical, postoperative predictors were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients with LB were significantly older (61 vs 56 years, P < 0.025) and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy more frequently (22.5% vs 8.5%,P = 0.017). Extended lymphadenectomy (52.8% vs 31.0%,P = 0.006), longer operative times (OT) (307 vs 250 min,P = 0.002), greater estimated blood loss (250 vs 150 ml, P = 0.021), and the appearance of purulent fluid in surgical drains (58.4% vs 21.1%; P < 0.001) were more frequently observed in LB group. Only purulent fluid in surgical drains and longer OT were confirmed as independent predictors of BL clinical progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Purulent fluid from surgical drains should be suspicious of BL upgrading. Frail patients undergoing longer interventions may represent key targets of mitigation strategies to minimize the magnitude of an incipient fistula and its increase in morbidity.

Negative prognostic implications of splenomegaly in nivolumab-treated advanced or recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have limited efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We investigated prognostic markers for nivolumab-based therapy in advanced or recurrent PDAC. Consecutive patients receiving nivolumab-based therapy at our institution between 2015 and 2020 were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed through univariate and multivariate analyses. Spleen volume was estimated from the width, thickness, and length of the spleen. A total of 45 patients were identified. Biweekly nivolumab was administered as monotherapy (n = 5) or in combination with chemotherapy or targeted therapy (n = 40). Among 31 evaluable patients, the response and disease control rates were 7% and 36%, respectively. The baseline median spleen volume was 267 (110–674) mL. Patients with spleens ≥267 mL had significantly shorter median OS (1.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0–2.7) than did those with smaller spleens (8.2 months, 95% CI, 5.6–10.8; P = .003). In the multivariate analysis, spleen volume of <267 mL, ≤2 lines of prior chemotherapy, ECOG performance status of 0–2, add-on nivolumab with stable disease after prior therapy, concomitant or sequential cell therapy, high lymphocyte count, and total bilirubin <1 mg/dL were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS. In the control groups of patients receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (n = 142) or FOLFIRINOX regimen (n = 24), spleen volume exhibited no prognostic significance. In heavily pretreated PDAC, a large spleen may predict poor OS following nivolumab-based immunotherapy. Studies with larger cohorts should confirm the prognostic value of spleen volume.

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.

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.

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.

Variation in Hospital Utilization of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Localized Pancreatic Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for localized neoplasms has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe. However, national adoption of the technique is poorly understood. Objectives of this study were to identify factors associated with use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for localized neoplasms and assess hospital variation in MIDP utilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with pancreatic cysts, stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and stage I pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors undergoing distal pancreatectomy from the ACS NSQIP Pancreas Targeted Dataset. Factors associated with use of MIDP were identified using multivariable logistic regression and hospital-level variation was assessed.

RESULTS

Analysis included 3,059 patients at 139 hospitals. Overall, 64.5% of patients underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Patients were more likely to undergo MIDP if they had lower ASA classification (P = 0.004) or BMI ≥ 30 (P < 0.001) and less likely if they had pancreatic adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). There was notable hospital variability in utilization (range 0 to 100% of cases). Hospital-level utilization of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy did not appear to be driven by patient selection, as hierarchical analysis demonstrated that only 1.8% of observed hospital variation was attributable to measured patient selection factors.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of MIDP for localized pancreatic neoplasms is highly variable. While some patient-level factors are associated with MIDP use, hospital adoption of MIDP appears to be the primary driver of utilization. Monitoring hospital-level use of MIDP may be a useful quality measure to monitor uptake of emerging techniques in pancreatic surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal malignancy of the digestive organs. Although pancreatic resection is essential to radically cure this refractory disease, the multi-organ resection involved, as well as sequelae such as glucose tolerance insufficiency and severe complications impose a heavy burden on these patients. Since the late twentieth century, minimally invasive surgery has become more popular for the surgical management of digestive disease and pancreatic cancer. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR), including pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, is now a treatment option for pancreatic cancer. Some evidence suggests that MIPR for pancreatic cancer provides comparable oncological outcomes to open surgery, with some advantages in perioperative outcomes. However, as this evidence is retrospective, prospective investigations, including randomized controlled trials, are necessary. Because neoadjuvant therapy for resectable or borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer and conversion surgery for initially unresectable pancreatic cancer has become more common, the feasibility of MIPR after neoadjuvant therapy or as conversion surgery requires further assessment. It is expected that progress in surgical techniques and devices, as well as the standardization of surgical procedures and widespread educational programs will improve the outcomes of MIPR.

Improved oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive left pancreatectomy: Propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive (MIS) left pancreatectomy (LP) is increasingly used to treat pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite improved short-term outcomes, no studies have demonstrated long-term benefits over open resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried between 2010 and 2016 for patients with PDAC, grouped by surgical approach (MIS vs open). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical staging, and pathologic staging were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative, short-term oncologic, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After matching, both cohorts included 805 patients. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, staging, or preoperative therapy between cohorts. The MIS cohort had a shorter length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 vs 8.5 ± 7.3 days; P < .0001) with the trend toward improved time to chemotherapy (53.9 ± 26.1 vs 57.9 ± 29.9 days; P = .0511) and margin-positive resection rate (15.3% vs 18.9%; P = .0605). Lymph node retrieval and receipt of chemotherapy were similar. The MIS cohort had higher median overall survival (28.0 vs 22.1 months; P = .0067). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest survival for robotic compared with laparoscopic and open LP (41.9 vs 26.6 vs 22.1 months; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the safety of MIS LP and favorable long-term oncologic outcomes. The improved survival after MIS LP warrants further study with prospective, randomized trials.

Outcomes of Elective and Emergency Conversion in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) on outcome by a propensity-matched comparison with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is associated with faster recovery as compared with ODP. The high conversion rate (15%-25%) in patients with PDAC, however, is worrisome and may negatively influence outcome.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a retrospective cohort including distal pancreatectomies for PDAC from 34 centers in 11 countries. Patients requiring conversion were matched, using propensity scores, to ODP procedures (1:2 ratio). Indications for conversion were classified as elective conversions (eg, vascular involvement) or emergency conversions (eg, bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 1212 distal pancreatectomies for PDAC, 345 patients underwent MIDP, with 68 (19.7%) conversions, mostly elective (n = 46, 67.6%). Vascular resection (other than splenic vessels) was required in 19.1% of the converted procedures. After matching (61 MIDP-converted vs 122 ODP), conversion did not affect R-status, recurrence of cancer, nor overall survival. However, emergency conversion was associated with increased overall morbidity (61.9% vs 31.1%, P= 0.007) and a trend to worse oncological outcome compared with ODP. Elective conversion was associated with comparable overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective conversion in MIDP for PDAC was associated with comparable short-term and oncological outcomes in comparison with ODP. However, emergency conversions were associated with worse both short- and long-term outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve, and consideration of early conversion when unexpected intraoperative findings are encountered.

Short-term surgical morbidity and mortality of distal pancreatectomy performed for benign versus malignant diseases: a NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) accounts for 25% of all pancreatic resections. Complications following DP occur in around 40% of the cases. Our aim is to analyze short-term surgical outcomes of DP based on whether the indication for resection was benign or malignant pathology, as well as the effect of the surgical approach, open versus laparoscopic on morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We studied all patients undergoing DP from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy participant use file from 2014 to 2016. The patients were divided into 2 groups, those who underwent DP for benign diseases (DP-B) and those who underwent DP for malignant diseases (DP-M). We performed multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between benign or malignant distal pancreatectomies and 30-day outcomes. We included clinically and/or statistically significant confounders into the models. We also conducted the same analysis in the subgroups of open and laparoscopic DP.

RESULTS

Three thousand five hundred and seventy-nine patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. The most common indication for surgery was malignant disease in 1894 (53%). Thirty-day mortality occurred in 0.4% of DP-B compared to 1.3% DP-M. On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was found in mortality or in the risk of pancreatic fistula between the 2 groups. Bleeding (p = 0.002) and composite morbidity (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the DP-M group. Among composite morbidities, thromboembolism was significantly associated with DP-M (OR 2.1, p = 0.0004) only when performed with an open approach.

CONCLUSION

DP-M is associated with a significantly higher risk of post-operative bleeding, thromboembolism, and sepsis compared to DP-B but no significant increase in mortality. When further analyzing the impact of the operative approach on morbidity, there was an increased rate of post-operative thromboembolic in the DP-M group when the surgery was performed in an open manner and this increased risk was no longer statistically significant if the DP-M was performed using a minimally invasive approach.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center

INTRODUCTION

While minimally invasive left pancreatectomy has become more widespread and generally accepted over the last decade, opinions on modality of minimally invasive approach (robotic or laparoscopic) remain mixed with few institutions performing a significant portion of both operative approaches simultaneously.

METHODS

247 minimally invasive left pancreatectomies were retrospectively identified in a prospectively maintained institutional REDCap™ database, 135 laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and 108 robotic-assisted left pancreatectomy (RLP). Demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and OR costs were compared between LLP and RLP with an additional subgroup analysis for procedures performed specifically for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (35 LLP and 23 RLP) focusing on pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics or indications between LLP and RLP with 34% performed for chronic pancreatitis and 23% performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. While laparoscopic cases were faster (p < 0.001) robotic cases had a higher rate of splenic preservation (p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5 days for RLP and LLP, and rate of clinically significant grade B/C pancreatic fistula was approximately 20% for both groups. Conversion rates to laparotomy were 4.3% and 1.8% for LLP and RLP approaches respectively. RLP had a higher rate of readmission (p = 0.035). Pathologic outcomes and 2-year actuarial survival were similar between LLP and RLP. LLP on average saved $206.67 in OR costs over RLP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that at a high-volume center with significant minimally invasive experience, both LLP and RLP can be equally effective when used at the discretion of the operating surgeon. We view the laparoscopic and robotic platforms as tools for the modern surgeon, and at our institution, given the technical success of both operative approaches, we will continue to encourage our surgeons to approach a difficult operation with their tool of choice.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.