Portal Vein Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Risk of Thrombosis and Radicality Determine Survival

Incidence and Management of Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis in Pancreatic Diseases

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) in pancreatic disease has a 20%-30% incidence rate, leading to increased mortality and complication rates. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence about the incidence, risk factors, and management of pancreatic cancer, pancreatic cystic neoplasm-, and pancreatitis-related SVT. Doppler ultrasound should be the first imaging choice, followed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Data regarding SVT treatment in acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer are scarce; however, for venous thromboembolism treatment, direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin have been effective. Further trials must investigate the length of anticoagulant treatment and the need for interventional radiological procedures.

Thrombosis and anticoagulation after portal vein reconstruction during pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Portal vein (PV) resection and reconstruction, which includes the resection and reconstruction of the PV and superior mesenteric vein, enable surgical removal of borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Thrombosis of the reconstructed PV represents a major cause of early postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. No universally accepted standard for anticoagulation exists. This study aimed to assess early and late thrombosis rates after PV reconstruction with special regard to the type of PV reconstruction and anticoagulation regimen and to comprehensively assess thrombotic events and their clinical effect in patients receiving pancreatic surgery with venous resection and reconstruction.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Studies reporting on PV resection and reconstruction providing data on thrombosis rates were included. The following parameters were assessed: study type, year of publication, number of patients, type/number of PV reconstruction, follow-up period, postoperative mortality, thrombosis rate of the reconstructed PV axis, intraoperative blood loss, and anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 2751 patients were included in the final analysis. Of note, 670 patients received tangential resection of the PV with venorrhaphy or patch repair, 1505 patients had segmental resection with end-to-end reconstruction, and 576 patients received reconstruction with an interposition graft/conduit. The pooled overall thrombosis rate was 15%. Reconstruction of tangential defects with either venorrhaphy or patch repair and end-to-end repair of segmental defects resulted in a thrombosis rate of 12%. Subgroup analysis according to the type of graft reconstruction revealed the highest occlusion rates of 55% in patients with allogeneic grafts, followed by up to 27% in patients with synthetic PV conduits. Autologous conduits had a thrombosis rate of 10%. Early thrombotic events were detected in 5% of patients after venorrhaphy/patch reconstruction and end-to-end reconstruction. Early events were most common in the allogeneic graft subgroup (22%), followed by synthetic conduits (15%). There were fewer early events in the autologous graft group (7%). Early PV thrombosis was associated with relevant mortality of up to 26%. Anticoagulation regimens varied between studies.

CONCLUSION

The overall thrombosis rate after PV resection is low. However, among the different reconstruction techniques, allogeneic interposition grafts/conduits had the highest thrombosis rates among the different types of reconstruction after PV resection. No specific anticoagulation strategy can be considered beneficial based on the existing literature.

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

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.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying in patients undergoing total pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Current research on delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery is predominantly focused on pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), with little exploration into DGE following total pancreatectomy (TP). This study aims to investigate the risk factors for DGE after TP and develop a predictive model.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 106 consecutive cases of TP performed between January 2013 and December 2023 at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH). After applying the inclusion criteria, 96 cases were selected for analysis. These patients were randomly divided into a training set (n = 67) and a validation set (n = 29) in a 7:3 ratio. LASSO regression and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with clinically relevant DGE (grades B/C) and to construct a predictive nomogram. The ROC curve, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve (CIC) were employed to evaluate the model's prediction accuracy.

RESULTS

The predictive model identified end-to-side gastrointestinal anastomosis, intraoperative blood transfusion, and venous reconstruction as risk factors for clinically relevant DGE after TP. The ROC was 0.853 (95%CI 0.681-0.900) in the training set and 0.789 (95%CI 0.727-0.857) in the validation set. The calibration curve, DCA, and CIC confirmed the accuracy and practicality of the nomogram.

CONCLUSION

We developed a novel predictive model that accurately identifies potential risk factors associated with clinically relevant DGE in patients undergoing TP.

Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy With Vein Resection and Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC).

Background

Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis.

Methods

This was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs.

Results

Of the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

In this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.

Portal vein resection in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Surgery offers the only cure for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Data on incidence, perioperative and long-term outcomes of portal vein resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are scarce. This study aimed to analyze the outcome and prognostic factors of portal vein resection in surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were analyzed. Portal vein resection was classified according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery. Clinicopathologic features and overall and disease-free survival were assessed and compared with standard resection in a matched-pair analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 54 of 666 (8%) resected pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms patients underwent portal vein resection, including 7 (13%) tangential resections with venorrhaphy (type 1), 2 (4%) patch reconstructions (type 2), 35 (65%) end-to-end anastomoses (type 3), and 10 (19%) graft interpositions (type 4); 52% of those underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 22% distal pancreatectomy, and 26% total pancreatectomy. Postoperative portal vein thrombosis occurred in 19%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C (9% vs 16%; P = .357), complications Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIb (28% vs 13%; P = .071), and 90-day mortality rate (2% each) were not significantly different compared with 108 matched patients. The 5-year overall survival was 45% (standard resection: 68%; P = .432), and the 5-year disease-free survival was 25% (standard resection: 34%; P = .716). Radical resection was associated with 5-year overall survival of 51% and 5-year disease-specific survival of 75%.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest single-center analysis evaluating perioperative and long-term outcomes of portal vein resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. The postoperative complication rate after portal vein resection is comparable with standard resection. The 90-day mortality is low. Radical resection leads to excellent 5-year oncological survival.

Distal Pancreatectomy: Extent of Resection Determines Surgical Risk Categories

BACKGROUND

Recently, subclassification of pancreatoduodenectomy in 4 differing types has been reported, because additional major vascular and multivisceral resections have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To classify distal pancreatectomy (DP) based on the extent of resection and technical difficulty and to evaluate postoperative outcomes with regards to this classification system.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who had undergone DP between 2001 and 2020 in a high-volume pancreatic surgery center were included in this study. DPs were subclassified into 4 distinct categories reflecting the extent of resection and technical difficulty, including standard DP (type 1), DP with venous (type 2), multivisceral (type 3), or arterial resection (type 4). Patient characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared among the 4 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2135 patients underwent DP. Standard DP was the most frequently performed procedure (64.8%). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 1.6%. Morbidity rates were higher in patients with additional vascular or multivisceral resections, and 90-day mortality gradually increased with the extent of resection from standard DP to DP with arterial resection (type 1: 0.7%; type 2: 1.3%; type 3: 3%; type 4: 8.7%; P <0.0001). Multivariable analysis confirmed the type of DP as an independent risk factor for 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes after DP depend on the extent of resection and correlate with the type of DP. The implementation of the 4-type classification system allows standardized reporting of surgical outcomes after DP improving comparability of future studies.

Preoperative chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgical decision-making in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Surgical resection combined with systemic chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with localized pancreatic cancer. Upfront surgery is considered suboptimal in cases with extensive vascular involvement, which can be classified as either borderline resectable pancreatic cancer or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In these patients, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy is currently used as preoperative chemotherapy and is eventually combined with radiotherapy. Thus, more patients might reach 5-year overall survival. Patient selection for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and subsequent surgery is based on anatomical, biological and conditional parameters. Current guidelines and clinical practices vary considerably regarding preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, response evaluation, and indications for surgery. In this Review, we provide an overview of the clinical evidence regarding disease staging, preoperative therapy, response evaluation and surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, a clinical work-up is proposed based on the available evidence and guidelines. We identify knowledge gaps and outline a proposed research agenda.

Technical Strategy for Pancreatic Body Cancers: A Raison d'etre of Distal Pancreatectomy with Portal Resection

BACKGROUND

Advancements in multiagent chemotherapy have expanded the surgical indications for pancreatic cancer. Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR) has become widely adopted, distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR remains rarely performed because of its technical complexity. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of DP-PVR compared with PD-PVR for pancreatic body cancers, with a focus on PV complications and providing optimal reconstruction techniques when DP-PVR is necessary.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive pancreatic body cancer patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR between 2005 and 2020. An algorithm based on the anatomical relationship between the arteries and PV was used for optimal surgical selection.

RESULTS

Among 119 patients, 32 underwent DP-PVR and 87 underwent PD-PVR. Various reconstruction techniques were employed in DP-PVR cases, including patch reconstruction, graft interposition, and wedge resection. The majority of PD-PVR cases involved end-to-end anastomosis. The length of PVR was shorter in DP-PVR (25 vs. 40 mm; p < 0.001). Although Clavien-Dindo ≥3a was higher in DP-PVR (p = 0.002), inpatient mortality and R0 status were similar. Complete PV occlusion occurred more frequently in DP-PVR than in PD-PVR (21.9% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 30 mm for PVR length was determined to be predictive of nonrecurrence-related PV occlusion after DP-PVR. The two groups did not differ significantly in recurrence or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

DP-PVR had higher occlusion and postoperative complication rates than PD-PVR. These findings support the proposed algorithm and emphasize the importance of meticulous surgical manipulation when DP-PVR is deemed necessary.

A nomogram model to predict the portal vein thrombosis risk after surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer

Background

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a common postoperative complication in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), significantly affecting their quality of life and long-term prognosis. Our aim is to establish a new nomogram to predict the risk of PVT after PC surgery.

Method

We collected data from 416 patients who underwent PC surgery at our hospital between January 2011 and June 2022. This includes 87 patients with PVT and 329 patients without PVT. The patients were randomly divided into a training group and a validation group at a ratio of 7:3. We constructed a nomogram model using the outcomes from both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses conducted on the training group. The nomogram's predictive capacity was assessed using calibration curve, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

In the study, the prevalence of PVT was 20.9%. Age, albumin, vein reconstruction and preoperative D-dimer were independent related factors. The model achieved a C-index of 0.810 (95% confidence interval: 0.752-0.867), demonstrating excellent discrimination and calibration performance. The area under the ROC curve of the nomogram was 0.829 (95% CI: 0.750-0.909) in the validation group. DCA confirmed that the nomogram model was clinically useful when the incidence of PVT in patients was 5%-60%.

Conclusion

We have established a high-performance nomogram for predicting the risk of PVT in patients undergoing PC surgery. This will assist clinical doctors in identifying individuals at high risk of PVT and taking appropriate preventive measures.

Allogeneic Vessels in Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Portal Vein Resection: Risk of Portal Vein Thrombosis and Prognosis

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic vessels (AV) are commonly used in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR), but the epidemiological characteristics of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) are still unclear.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of patients who underwent PD combined with PVR in our hospital from January 2011 to October 2022 were retrospectively collected. All patients underwent regular contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen after surgery to identify PVT or recurrence and metastasis of the tumor.

RESULTS

A total of 878 patients received PD, of which 213 patients who also underwent PVR were included in the study. Among them are 16 (7.5%) tangential/patch reconstructions, 51 (23.9%) end-to-end anastomosis, and 146 (68.5%) AV reconstructions. The cumulative incidence of PVT in 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery was 0.9%, 7.3%, 7.3%, 15.9%, 23.4%, and 27.6%, respectively. The results of logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes, operation procedure, and AV reconstruction were independent risk factors for PVT (P < 0.05). In the Cox analysis, PVT was clearly correlated with tumor recurrence (P = 0.038, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.553) and overall survival (P = 0.044, HR = 1.592) of pancreatic cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of PVT is high in PD with PVR, particularly in patients undergoing AV reconstructions. The occurrence of PVT has a clear correlation with the patient's long-term prognosis.

Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer

Patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are best treated with surgical resection of the primary tumour and systemic chemotherapy, which provides considerably longer overall survival (OS) durations than either modality alone. Regardless, most patients will have disease relapse owing to micrometastatic disease. Although currently a matter of some debate, considerable research interest has been focused on the role of neoadjuvant therapy for all forms of resectable PDAC. Whilst adjuvant combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for patients with resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy seems to improve OS without necessarily increasing the resection rate in those with borderline-resectable disease. Furthermore, around 20% of patients with unresectable non-metastatic PDAC might undergo resection following 4-6 months of induction combination chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy, even in the absence of a clear radiological response, leading to improved OS outcomes in this group. Distinct molecular and biological responses to different types of therapies need to be better understood in order to enable the optimal sequencing of specific treatment modalities to further improve OS. In this Review, we describe current treatment strategies for the various clinical stages of PDAC and discuss developments that are likely to determine the optimal sequence of multimodality therapies by integrating the fundamental clinical and molecular features of the cancer.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR.

METHODS

The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.

Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: Currently Debated Topics on Vascular Resection

Vascular resections involving the superior mesenteric and portal veins (SMV-PV), celiac axis (CA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and hepatic artery (HA) have multiplied in recent years, raising the resection rate for pancreatic cancer (PDAC) and the related morbidity and mortality rates. While resection is generally accepted for resectable SMV-PV, the usefulness of associated arterial resection in borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally-advanced PDAC (LAPC) is much debated. Careful selection of splenic vein reconstruction is very important to prevent left-sided portal hypertension (LSPH). During distal pancreatectomy (DP), CA and common HA resection is largely accepted, while there is debate on the value of SMA and proper HA resection and reconstruction. Their resection is useless according to several reviews and meta-analyses, and some international societies, although some high-volume centers have reported good results. Short- and long-term reconstructed vessel patency varies with the type of reconstruction, the material used, and the surgeon's experience. Laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and DP are generally accepted if done by surgeons performing at least 10 such procedures annually. The usefulness of associated vascular resection remains highly controversial. Surgeons need to complete numerous minimally-invasive procedures to overcome the learning curve, and prevent an increase in complications and surgical mortality. Higher resectability rates and satisfactory long-term results have been reported after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for BRPC and LAPC requiring vascular resection. It is essential to select the most appropriate NAT for a given patient and to assess PDAC resectability preoperatively.