Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An International Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma and impact factors on textbook outcome

BACKGROUND

Distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes and "textbook outcome (TO)" between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for dCCA after the learning curve of surgeons.

METHODS

Clinical and follow-up data were included for dCCA patients treated with LPD or OPD at our center between January 2017 and December 2022. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize bias between groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent prognostic factors for TO.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients were enrolled in the study, 224 in the LPD group and 206 in the OPD group. After PSM, 184 patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in operative duration, lymph nodes harvest, intraoperative transfusion, vascular resection, R0 resection, severe complications, readmission rate, 30-day mortality, TO, and long-term prognosis between the two groups before and after PSM (all P > 0.05). Compared with OPD, LPD had less estimated blood loss (160 vs. 250mL, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative length of stay (13 vs. 16 days, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that texture of pancreas [hard vs. soft, Odds Ratio (OR) 2.016; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.276-3.184; P = 0.003] and operation duration (> 360 min vs. ≤ 360 min, OR 0.595, 95% CI 0.375-0.944, P = 0.027) were independent prognostic factors for TO.

CONCLUSIONS

After learning curve, LPD is safe and feasible for the treatment of dCCA, with the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and faster postoperative recovery.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained widespread acceptance among hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons due to its demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional open approach. This meta-analysis, along with trial sequential analysis, aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current available evidence.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 2024. We assessed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including open conversion rates, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Additional factors, such as blood loss and the number of lymph nodes resected, were also evaluated. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tools. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching status, and trial sequential analysis was applied to statistically significant results on first analysis.

RESULTS

We meta-analyzed seventeen studies, with a total of 5,483 patients. The meta-analysis reported lower rates of open conversion (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.61; p = < 0.001) and a higher number of lymph nodes resected (MD 3.5; 95% CI 1.45-5.55; p = 0.0008) in the RPD group. These results remained consistent after subgroup analysis. Trial sequential analysis confirmed true positive results, indicating that further studies are unnecessary to detect a significant difference. However, other perioperative outcomes did not show statistical significance and failed to reach the required information size for definitive conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of non-randomized cohorts found lower rates of open conversion and a higher number of lymph nodes resected in patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. However, the initial analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in transfusion rates, multivisceral and vascular resections, hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, mortality, or readmission rates. Future studies should focus on randomized designs, target more specific populations, and include long-term outcomes for a more comprehensive analysis.

Comparison of short‑ and long‑term outcomes between laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy in overweight patients: a propensity score‑matched study

BACKGROUND

Overweight is thought to affect the outcome of minimally invasive surgery. There is still a lack of controlled studies of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in overweight patients. This study was designed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes in overweight patients treated with LPD and OPD.

METHODS

Clinical and follow-up data on overweight patients who received LPD or OPD at Shandong Provincial Hospital from January 2015 to December 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The bias between groups were balanced by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Kaplan-Meier survival curves described long-term survival outcomes in overweight pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients.

RESULTS

A total of 502 overweight patients were enrolled in the study. There were 276 patients in the LPD group and 226 in the OPD group. After matching, 196 patients were enrolled in each group. Compared with the OPD group, the LPD group had fewer estimated blood loss (EBL) (140 vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001), more lymph node dissection (14 vs. 12, P = 0.010), and shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (13 vs. 16 days, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in severe complications, 90-day readmission and mortality rates (all P > 0.05). The subgroup analysis of obese patients also showed that the LPD group had fewer intraoperative EBL, more lymph node dissection, and shorter LOS. The survival analysis showed that overweight patients with PDAC who underwent LPD or OPD had similar overall survival (OS) (23.8 vs.25.7 months, P = 0.963) after PSM.

CONCLUSION

It is safe and feasible for overweight patients undergoing LPD to have less EBL, more lymph node harvesting, and a shorter LOS. There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival outcomes among overweight PDAC patients between the two approaches.

The safety and feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: A multicenter retrospective assessment of 425 patients in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The Japanese public health insurance system has recently covered robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to review the results of RPD during the introductory period and elucidate its safety and feasibility in Japan.

METHODS

Consecutive data of 425 patients who underwent RPD were retrospectively collected from 10 high-volume centers in Japan between April 2020 and September 2022. The primary endpoints were the rates of conversion to open surgery and completion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), defined as the use of a totally robotic operation or combined robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary endpoints were operative time, blood loss, complication rate, and 30- and 90-day mortality rates.

RESULTS

Study comprised 222 males and 203 females, with a median age of 70 (p10-p90; 50-81) years. The conversion to open surgery and completion rates of MIS were 3.8% (16 patients) and 91.1% (387 patients), respectively. The median operative time was 617 min (p10-p90; 456-834 min), and the median volume of blood loss was 160 g (p10-p90; 30-558 g). The complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ IIIa) was 20.5%. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that RPD can be introduced successfully and is a promising approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Objective

The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) compared with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors is controversial. This study aims to assess the available literature and compare the short outcomes of RPD and LPD.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to 24 July, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 9417 patients (RPD group: 3334 patients; LPD group: 6083 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The RPD group had lower overall morbidity (RR, 0.79), conversion (RR, 0.29) and blood transfusion rates (RR, 0.61), shorter length of stay (MD, -0.72 days), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.62) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (RR, 0.89), major complications (RR, 0.87), operative time (MD, -3.74 mins), blood loss (MD, -24.14 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.94), bile leak (RR, 0.62), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (RR, 0.96), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.74), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 1.24), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups.

Conclusions

Compared with LPD, RPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are necessary.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=581133, identifier CRD42024581133.

Comparison of robot-assisted, open, and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, and to evaluate the clinical effect of three surgical methods in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma by network Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematical retrieval in PubMed and Web of Science was performed for relative literature on the effects of robot-assisted(RA), laparoscopy-assisted(LA), and open surgery(OA) for cholangiocarcinoma in treating cholangiocarcinoma. A literature search updated to September 1st, 2024, was performed.

RESULTS

Studies have shown that the length of R0 resection, complication rate, 30-day mortality, Transfusion rate, Lymph Node Metastasis Rate, and hospital stay in RA are superior to LA and open surgery. The relative effectiveness of the three surgical methods in terms of operation time were: open surgery, laparoscope-assisted surgery, and robot-assisted surgery, and there was no significant difference among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery is safe and feasible in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, but more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

ZNF460-mediated upregulation of APCDD1L-DT promotes cholangiocarcinoma development by inhibiting the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of DVL2

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), known for its aggressive nature, poses a formidable challenge in the current medical landscape, particularly in targeted therapies. Against this backdrop, long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have captured the attention of researchers. These unique RNAs are believed to play pivotal roles in various cancers, offering promising avenues for the development of more effective treatment strategies. Previous studies have substantiated the aberrant expression of the APCDD1L-DT in numerous human tumors, demonstrating its positive regulatory roles in disease progression. Nevertheless, the biological functions of APCDD1L-DT in CCA are still not fully understood. This study marks the inaugural documentation of APCDD1L-DT exhibiting aberrant expression in CCA specimen, establishing a close correlation with the TNM staging of tumor patients. Furthermore, suppressing APCDD1L-DT expression hinders both the viability and motility of tumor cells. Mechanistically, the abnormal activation of the transcription factor ZNF460 positively regulated APCDD1L-DT expression in CCA. This activation, in turn, propels the abnormal activation of the Wnt pathway, fostering tumor development by impeding the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of DVL2. Broadly speaking, this study provides auspicious perspectives for comprehending CCA and furnishes support for addressing this daunting malignancy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited for the treatment of pancreatic cancer among minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) from April 2016 to April 2023. Their baseline and perioperative data, including operative time, R0 resection rates, and severe complications rates, were analyzed, and the follow-up data, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 253 cases of LPD and RPD were performed, and 101 cases with pancreatic cancer were included, of which 54 were LPD and 47 were RPD. The conversion rate (4.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.001) and blood loss (400 vs. 575 mL, p < 0.05) were lower in the RPD group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, vessel resection rates, and TNM-stage diagnosis; however, R0 resection rates (80.9% vs. 70.4%) and lymph node harvest (24.2 vs. 21.9) had a higher tendency in the RPD group, and postoperative length of stay was shorter in the RPD cohort (11 vs. 13 days). Moreover, improved 1- to 3-years DFS (75.7%, 61.7%, and 36.0% vs. 59.0%, 35.6%, and 21.9%) and OS (94.7%, 84.7%, and 50.8% vs. 84.1%, 63.6%, and 45.5%) was found in the RPD group in comparison with the LPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD had advantages in surgical safety and oncological outcomes compared with LPD, but was similar to the latter in perioperative outcomes. Long-term outcomes require further study.

Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy in Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pancreatoduodenectomy, the primary surgical strategy for managing cholangiocarcinoma, is executed via two distinct methodologies, namely minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The selection between these surgical options is critical, as it directly influences patient outcomes, encompassing both short-term recovery metrics and long-term survival rates. Despite the clinical significance of these procedures, there exists a notable void in the literature regarding a comprehensive comparison of MIPD and OPD, particularly in assessing their respective efficacies and complications. This lack of detailed comparative analysis has left a gap in evidence-based guidance for clinicians faced with the decision of choosing the most appropriate surgical approach for their patients. The absence of robust data comparing the two techniques underscores the necessity for a meta-analysis that rigorously examines and contrasts the outcomes associated with MIPD and OPD. By drawing upon a wide array of international studies, this research aims to shed light on the advantages and potential drawbacks of each method, thereby providing a more informed basis for surgical decision-making in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

The State of Systematic Therapies in Clinic for Hepatobiliary Cancers

Hepatobiliary cancer (HBC) includes hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary tract carcinoma (cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma), and its morbidity and mortality are significantly correlated with disease stage. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative therapy for early stage of HBC. However, a large proportion of patients with HBC are diagnosed with advanced stage and can only receive systemic treatment. According to the results of clinical trials, the first-line and second-line treatment programs are constantly updated with the improvement of therapeutic effectiveness. In order to improve the therapeutic effect, reduce the occurrence of drug resistance, and reduce the adverse reactions of patients, the treatment of HBC has gradually developed from single-agent therapy to combination. The traditional therapeutic philosophy proposed that patients with advanced HBC are only amenable to systematic therapies. With some encouraging clinical trial results, the treatment concept has been revolutionized, and patients with advanced HBC who receive novel systemic combination therapies with multi-modality treatment (including surgery, transplant, TACE, HAIC, RT) have significantly improved survival time. This review summarizes the treatment options and the latest clinical advances of HBC in each stage and discusses future direction, in order to inform the development of more effective treatments for HBC.