Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with combined venous vascular resection: A comparative analysis with open approach

Backgrounds/Aims

This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer.

Methods

Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed.

Results

MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien-Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95-67.14] vs. median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97-58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47-48.65] vs. median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80-47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45-47.27] vs. 48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16-58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03-31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44-43.27]; p = 0.740).

Conclusions

MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Consensus, debate, and prospective on pancreatic cancer treatments

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most aggressive solid tumors. As a systemic disease, despite the improvement of multi-modality treatment strategies, the prognosis of pancreatic cancer was not improved dramatically. For resectable or borderline resectable patients, the surgical strategy centered on improving R0 resection rate is consensus; however, the role of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable patients and the optimal neoadjuvant therapy of chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy in borderline resectable patients were debated. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy of gemcitabine/capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX is recommended regardless of the margin status. Chemotherapy as the first-line treatment strategy for advanced or metastatic patients included FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, or NALIRIFOX regimens whereas 5-FU plus liposomal irinotecan was the only standard of care second-line therapy. Immunotherapy is an innovative therapy although anti-PD-1 antibody is currently the only agent approved by for MSI-H, dMMR, or TMB-high solid tumors, which represent a very small subset of pancreatic cancers. Combination strategies to increase the immunogenicity and to overcome the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment may sensitize pancreatic cancer to immunotherapy. Targeted therapies represented by PARP and KRAS inhibitors are also under investigation, showing benefits in improving progression-free survival and objective response rate. This review discusses the current treatment modalities and highlights innovative therapies for pancreatic cancer.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by junior surgeon: Initial experience of the next generation

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines exist for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) regarding its prerequisites and learning curve. However, these guidelines are based on the experience of the pioneers of MIPD; minimal data exist on the experience of the next generation of surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the two surgeon types (veteran and junior) for MIPD in terms of immediate postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

The postoperative outcomes of 22 patients who underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) by a junior surgeon from July 2021 to December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were compared with the initial postoperative outcomes and the contemporary postoperative outcomes of RAPD by a veteran surgeon.

RESULTS

In comparing the initial outcomes between the two surgeon types, the veteran surgeons showed a shorter operation time (junior surgeon vs. veteran surgeon: 606 ± 89 vs. 467 ± 77 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss (300 [200-600] ml. vs. 200 [100-500] ml, p = 0.208), major complications (≥CDC IIIa: 4 (18.2%) vs. 4 (18.2%), p = 1.000), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF; ≥ISGPF Grade B: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (13.6%), p > 0.999), and length of hospital stay (18.0 ± 8.9 days vs. 18.3 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.915), between the two surgeon types. In addition, in a comparison of the contemporary outcomes, there was no significant difference in terms of postoperative outcome (complications: 4 (18.2%) vs 11 (11.1%), p = 0.580; POPF: 2 (9.1%) vs. 3 (3.0%), p = 0.484; length of hospital stay: 18.0 ± 8.9 vs. 15.0 ± 6.5 days, p = 0.065).

CONCLUSION

The initial outcomes of MIPD by a well-trained junior surgeon were found to be comparable to those of MIPD by a veteran surgeon.

Recurrent cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic hepaticojejunostomy: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Cholangitis is a well-known complication after hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), which is mainly caused by a stenotic anastomosis. However, the rate of cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic (i.e. patent) HJ is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of recurrent cholangitis in patients with a non-stenotic HJ.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients who had undergone hepatobiliary or pancreatic (HPB) surgery requiring HJ (2015-2022). Primary outcome was recurrent non-stenotic cholangitis, risk factors for recurrent non-stenotic cholangitis were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 835 patients with a HJ were included of whom 31/698 (4.4%) patients developed recurrent cholangitis with a non-stenotic HJ during a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 22-50) and 98/796 (12.3%) patients developed a symptomatic HJ stenosis. These 31 patients experienced 205 cholangitis episodes, median 7.0 (IQR 3.8-8.8) per patient, and 71/205 (34.6%) cholangitis episodes required hospitalization. Male sex (aOR 3.17 (95% CI: 1.34-7.49)) and benign disease (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.40-6.33) were identified as risk factors for recurrent cholangitis in non-stenotic HJ in both univariate and multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that 4% of patients developed recurrent cholangitis without an underlying HJ stenosis.

Advances in the management of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer remains among the malignancies with the worst outcomes. Survival has been improving, but at a slower rate than other cancers. Multimodal treatment, including chemotherapy, surgical resection, and radiotherapy, has been under investigation for many years. Because of the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas, more emphasis on treatment selection has been placed on local extension into major vessels. Recently, the development of more effective treatment regimens has opened up new treatment strategies, but urgent research questions have also become apparent. This review outlines the current management of pancreatic cancer, and the recent advances in its treatment. The review discusses future treatment pathways aimed at integrating novel findings of translational and clinical research.