Surgical bypass vs. endoscopic stenting for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Palliative laparoscopic Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy as a feasible treatment option for malignant distal biliary obstruction

PURPOSES

The advantages of surgical bypass for patients with distal biliary obstruction caused by advanced periampullary cancer include a low risk of recurrent biliary obstruction; however, the highly invasive nature of the operation limits its use. Herein, we present the clinical findings of patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy (LRYCJ) compared with those who underwent endoscopic stent insertion.

METHODS

We reviewed, retrospectively, the palliative care outcomes for malignant bile duct obstruction according to the type of intervention: LRYCJ vs. endoscopic stenting. After initial intervention, the factors predisposing to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) were identified via multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 28 patients treated with LRYCJ (22.4%) and 97 patients who underwent endoscopic stent insertion (77.6%). The two groups did not differ in the incidence of early or late complications and mortality; however, the LRYCJ group had a lower incidence of RBO (4 patients, 14.3% vs. 73 patients, 75.3%; p < 0.001). As a predisposing factor for RBO, endoscopic stenting was the only highly significant predictor (OR 16.956, CI 5.140-55.935, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRYCJ represents an attractive option for palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction, with improved biliary-tract patency and less need for subsequent interventions such as additional stenting.

Endoscopic drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction: when and how

The question of when and how to drain a malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), both intrinsic or extrinsic, remains a controversial point among endoscopists. An important factor that influences the decision to drain an MBO or not is if the patient is a surgical candidate or not and, in the former case, if the patients must undergo neoadiuvant chemotherapy or not. Other questions arising during biliary drainage in MBO patients is which type of stent should be chosen, plastic or metal, and if endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy must be performed or not when a stent is placed. The present review attempts to answer these questions and summarizes the optimal approach toward patients with MBO based on the available evidence.

Biliary palliation for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: surgical bypass or self-expanding metal stent?

BACKGROUND

Standard of care guidelines endorse self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) rather than open surgical biliary bypass (OSBB) for biliary palliation in the setting of unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study used competing risk analysis to compare short- and long-term morbidity and overall survival among patients undergoing SEMS or OSBB after unresectable or metastatic disease is identified at the time of exploration.

METHODS

Single institution retrospective cohort study (n = 127) evaluating outcomes after OSBB and SEMS for biliary palliation in patients found to have unresectable PDAC at exploration. Short-term, long-term, and lifetime risk of biliary occlusion and survival were compared after adjustment for stage and comprehensive complication index (CCI).

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and tumor characteristics were equivalent between cohorts. Short-term complications were more frequent after OSBB, whereas late complications were greater after SEMS. The cumulative incidence of recurrent biliary obstruction was greater after SEMS, but lifetime complication burden and median survival were equivalent.

CONCLUSION

OSBB was associated with longer hospital stays and more short-term complications, and SEMS was associated with a higher risk of recurrent biliary obstruction among surgical patients with unresectable PDAC. Patient preference should be defined pre-operatively in the case the unresectable disease is encountered during attempted resection.

Use of radiotherapy in patients with palliative double bypass for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Purpose

Pancreatic cancer (PC) has not changed overall survival in recent years despite therapeutic efforts. Surgery with curative intent has shown the best long-term oncological results. However, 80%–85% of patients with these tumors are unresectable at the time of diagnosis. In those patients, first therapeutic attempts are minimally invasive or surgical procedures to alleviate symptoms. The addition of radiotherapy (RT) to standard chemotherapy, ergo chemoradiation, in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is still controversial. The study aims to compare outcomes in patients with a double bypass surgery due to LAPC treated or not with RT.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients with double bypass for LAPC were registered and divided into two groups: treated or not with postoperative RT. Baseline characteristics, postoperative complications, those related to RT and their relation to the main event (mortality) were compared.

Results

Seventy-four patients were included. Surgical complications between the groups did not offer significant differences. Complications related to RT were mostly mild, and 86% of patients completed the treatment. Overall survival at 1 and 2 years for patients in the exposed group was 64% and 35% vs. 50% and 28% in the non-exposed group, respectively (p = 0.11; power 72%; hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.24–1.18).

Conclusion

We observed a tendency for survival improvement in patients with postoperative RT. However, we’ve not had enough power to demonstrate this difference, possibly due to the small sample size. It is indispensable to develop randomized and prospective trials to guide more specific treatment lines in this patients.

TWELVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE USING CHOLECYSTOJEJUNAL BY-PASS FOR PALLIATIVE TREATMENT OF ADVANCED PANCREATIC CANCER

Background:

The cholecistojejunal bypass is an important resource to treat obstructive jaundice due to advanced pancreatic cancer.

Aim:

To assess the early morbidity and mortality of patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent cholecystojejunal derivation, and to assess the success of this procedure in relieving jaundice.

Method:

This retrospective study examined the medical records of patients who underwent surgery. They were categorized into early death and non-early death groups according to case outcome.

Results:

51.8% of the patients were male and 48.2% were female. The mean age was 62.3 years. Early mortality was 14.5%, and 10.9% of them experienced surgical complications. The cholecystojejunostomy procedure was effective in 97% of cases. There was a tendency of increased survival in women and patients with preoperative serum total bilirubin levels below 15 mg/dl.

Conclusion:

Cholecystojejunal derivation is a good therapeutic option for relieving jaundice in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

Early surgical bypass versus endoscopic stent placement in pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment for biliary obstruction in pancreatic cancer remains controversial between surgical bypass and endoscopic stenting.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of unresected pancreatic cancer patients in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery databases (2007-2011). Propensity score matching by procedure. Primary outcome was reintervention, and secondary outcomes were readmission, overall length of stay (LOS), discharge home, death and cost. Multivariate analyses performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In a matched cohort of 622, 20.3% (63) of endoscopic and 4.5% (14) of surgical patients underwent reintervention (p < 0.0001) and 56.0% (174) vs. 60.1% (187) were readmitted (p = 0.2909). Endoscopic patients had lower median LOS (10 vs. 19 days, p < 0.0001) and cost ($21,648 vs. $38,106, p < 0.0001) as well as increased discharge home (p = 0.0029). No difference in mortality on index admission. On multivariate analysis, initial procedure not predictive of readmission (p = 0.1406), but early surgical bypass associated with lower odds of reintervention (OR = 0.233, 95% CI 0.119, 0.434).

DISCUSSION

Among propensity score-matched patients receiving bypass vs. stenting, readmission and mortality rates are similar. However, candidates for both techniques may experience fewer subsequent procedures if offered early biliary bypass with the caveats of decreased discharge home and increased cost/LOS.

The Choice of Palliative Treatment for Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: Is Surgery Bypass Better?

This study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of palliative operation for carcinoma of pancreas between bypass surgery and interventional therapy. Most patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer cannot undergo resection and show obstructive jaundice at presentation. Methods of palliation in these patients comprise biliary stent or surgical bypass. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 53 patients who underwent palliative treatment with incurable locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This retrospective study compared morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, readmission rate, and survival in these patients. A total of 31 patients underwent biliary bypass surgery, and 22 had interventional therapy. There was no significant difference in the patients' basic condition before operation and in the 30-day mortality between surgical palliation and intervention. However, there were some differences in the early complications, survival time, successful biliary drainage, and recurrent jaundice. Through analysis of these clinical data and the published studies, we conclude that surgical bypass is a better effective palliative method for patients than biliary and duodenum stent with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients need to be carefully selected in consideration of operative risk and perceived overall survival.

Endoscopic and operative palliation strategies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Malignant biliary obstruction, duodenal, and gastric outlet obstruction, and tumor-related pain are the complications of unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma that most frequently require palliative intervention. Surgery involving biliary bypass with or without gastrojejunostomy was once the mainstay of treatment in these patients. However, advances in non-operative techniques-most notably the widespread availability of endoscopic biliary and duodenal stents-have shifted the paradigm of treatment away from traditional surgical management. Questions regarding the efficacy and durability of endoscopic stents for biliary and gastric outlet obstruction are reviewed and demonstrate high rates of therapeutic success, low rates of morbidity, and decreased cost. Surgery remains an effective treatment modality, and still produces the most durable relief in appropriately selected patients.

Laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy for palliative treatment of pancreatic head cancer in 48 patients

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 80% of patients with pancreatic cancer are not candidates for curative resection at the time of diagnosis. The objective of this study is to show that although endoscopic treatment is the standard palliation, surgical laparoscopic treatment is both feasible and effective for these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preoperative resectability was evaluated by dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans. Endoscopic palliation was the first choice for patients with metastatic disease and for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with bad performance status. Laparoscopic surgical palliation was indicated for patients with jaundice and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (elective palliation) and for patients with jaundice with metastatic disease and failure in the endoscopic/percutaneous treatment (necessary palliation). Elective palliation consisted of Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy and necessary palliation consisted of laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy alone.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients received laparoscopic surgical palliation. Morbidity rate was 33.3% and mortality was 2.08%. There was no need for late surgeries in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Surgical laparoscopic palliation is a feasible treatment option for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Even though metallic stents are still the best palliation method for patients with systemic disease, if stents fail, the laparoscopic approach is a viable treatment.

Resection versus other treatments for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive cancer. Resection of the cancer is the only treatment with the potential to achieve long-term survival. However, a third of patients with pancreatic cancer have locally advanced cancer involving adjacent structures such as blood vessels which are not usually removed because of fear of increased complications after surgery. Such patients often receive palliative treatment. Resection of the pancreas along with the involved vessels is an alternative to palliative treatment for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of surgical resection versus palliative treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers until February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pancreatic resection versus palliative treatments for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two trials comparing pancreatic resection versus other treatments for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Ninety eight patients were randomised to pancreatic resection (n = 47) or palliative treatment (n = 51) in the two trials included in this review. Both trials were at high risk of bias. Both trials included patients who had locally advanced pancreatic cancer which involved the serosa anteriorly or retroperitoneum posteriorly or involved the blood vessels. Such pancreatic cancers would be considered generally unresectable. One trial included patients with pancreatic cancer in different locations of the pancreas including the head, neck and body (n = 42). The patients allocated to the pancreatic resection group underwent partial pancreatic resection (pancreatoduodenectomy with lymph node clearance or distal pancreatic resection with lymph node clearance) in this trial; the control group received palliative treatment with chemoradiotherapy. In the other trial, only patients with cancer in the head or neck of the pancreas were included (n = 56). The patients allocated to the pancreatic resection group underwent en bloc total pancreatectomy with splenectomy and vascular reconstruction in this trial; the control group underwent palliative bypass surgery with chemoimmunotherapy. The pancreatic resection group had lower mortality than the palliative treatment group (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58, very low quality evidence). Both trials followed the survivors up to at least five years. There were no survivors at two years in the palliative treatment group in either trial. Approximately 40% of the patients who underwent pancreatic resection were alive in the pancreatic resection group at the end of three years. This difference in survival was statistically significant (RR 22.68; 95% CI 3.15 to 163.22). The difference persisted at five years of follow-up (RR 8.65; 95% CI 1.12 to 66.89). Neither trial reported severe adverse events but it is likely that a significant proportion of patients suffered from severe adverse events in both groups. The overall peri-operative mortality in the resection group in the two trials was 2.5%. None of the trials reported quality of life. The estimated difference in the length of total hospital stay (which included all admissions of the patient related to the treatment) between the two groups was imprecise (MD -23.00 days; 95% CI -59.05 to 13.05, very low quality evidence). The total treatment costs were significantly lower in the pancreatic resection group than the palliative treatment group (MD -10.70 thousand USD; 95% CI -14.11 to -7.29, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that pancreatic resection increases survival and decreases costs compared to palliative treatments for selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and venous involvement. When sufficient expertise is available, pancreatic resection could be considered for selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who are willing to accept the potentially increased morbidity associated with the procedure. Further randomised controlled trials are necessary to increase confidence in the estimate of effect and to assess the quality of life of patients and the cost-effectiveness of pancreatic resection versus palliative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

A meta-analysis of randomized trials: immediate stent placement vs. surgical bypass in the palliative management of malignant biliary obstruction

CONTEXT

Many patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer require treatment for malignant biliary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of the English language literature (1985-2011) comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass in patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer and analyze associated hospital utilization patterns.

METHODS

After identifying five randomized controlled trials comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass, we performed a meta-analysis for dichotomous outcomes, using a random effects model. We compared resource utilization in terms of the number of hospital days before death by reviewing high-quality literature.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-nine patients were identified. We found no statistically significant differences in success rates between the two treatments (risk ratio [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05; P = 0.67). Major complications and mortality were not significantly higher after surgical bypass (RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.87-2.71; P = 0.14). Recurrent biliary obstruction was significantly less frequent after surgical bypass than after stent placement (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.63; P < 0.01). Despite similar overall survival rates, longer survival was associated with more hospital days before death in stent patients than in surgical patients.

CONCLUSION

Nearly all patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer benefit from some procedure to manage biliary obstruction. Patients with low surgical risk benefit more from surgery because the risk of recurrence and subsequent hospital utilization are lower than after stent placement.

Long-term outcome of palliative treatment with self-expanding metal stents for malignant obstructions of the GI tract

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are commonly used in the palliative treatment of malignant gastrointestinal (GI) obstructions with favorable short-term outcome. Data on long-term outcome are scarce, however.

AIM

To evaluate long-term outcome after palliative stent treatment of malignant GI obstruction.

METHOD

Between October 2006 and April 2008, nine Norwegian hospitals included patients treated with SEMS for malignant esophageal, gastroduodenal, biliary, and colonic obstructions. Patients were followed for at least 6 months with respect to stent patency, reinterventions, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Stent placement was technically successful in 229 of 231 (99%) and clinically successful after 1 week in 220 of 229 (96%) patients. Long-term follow-up was available for 219 patients. Of those, 72 (33%) needed reinterventions. Stent occlusions or migrations (92%) were the most common reasons. Esophageal stents required reinterventions most frequently (41%), and had a significantly (p = 0.02) shorter patency (median 152 days) compared to other locations (gastroduodenal, 256 days; colon, 276 days; biliary, 460 days). Eighty percent of reinterventions were repeated endoscopic procedures that successfully restored patency. Readmissions were required for 156 (72%) patients. Progression of the underlying cancer was the most common reason, whereas 24% were readmitted due to stent complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcome after palliative treatment with SEMS for malignant GI and biliary obstruction shows that 70% had a patent stent until death, and that most reobstructions could be solved endoscopically. Hospital readmissions were mainly related to progression of the underlying cancer disease.

Locally advanced pancreatic head cancer: margin-positive resection or bypass?

Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive disease with poor survival. The only effective therapy offering long-term survival is complete surgical resection. In the setting of nonmetastatic disease, locally advanced tumors constitute a technical challenge to the surgeon and may result in margin-positive resection margins. Few studies have evaluated the implications of the latter in depth. The aim of this study was to compare the margin-positive situation to palliative bypass procedures and margin-negative resections in terms of perioperative and long-term outcome. By retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data from 360 patients operated for pancreatic cancer at our institution, we provide evidence that margin-positive resection still yields a significant survival benefit over palliative bypass procedures. At the same time, perioperative severe morbidity and mortality are not significantly increased. Our observations suggest that pancreatic cancer should be resected whenever technically feasible, including, cases of locally advanced disease.

Improving the diagnostic yield from staging laparoscopy for periampullary malignancies: the value of preoperative inflammatory markers and radiological tumor size

OBJECTIVES

The role of laparoscopy in staging periampullary malignancies is to detect small-volume metastatic disease not visible on preoperative imaging. Owing to improvements in preoperative imaging, some centers no longer undertake routine laparoscopic staging, whereas others still find it a useful pre-exploration tool.

METHODS

This study investigated the diagnostic yield of staging laparoscopies in 137 consecutive potentially resectable patients with periampullary malignancies. Serology on presentation, tumor size on computed tomography and proinflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-lymphocyte ratio, and Glasgow Prognostic Score were also examined to see if they were able to identify patients more likely to benefit from staging laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy identified occult disease in 16.1% of the patients. Only tumor diameter on cross-sectional imaging was related to an increase in diagnostic yield on staging laparoscopy. Area-under-curve values for tumor size and occult disease at laparoscopy were 0.8, with P = 0.0001.

CONCLUSION

Staging laparoscopy is a useful adjunct to computed tomography in staging periampullary cancers. Tumor size (especially >45 mm) is the only preoperative marker predictive of unexpected occult disease and may be used to select high-risk patients for laparoscopic staging.

Is intraoperative confirmation of malignancy during pancreaticoduodenectomy mandatory?

INTRODUCTION

Differentiating between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma can be difficult due to considerable overlap in disease presentation and radiological signs and the frequent co-existence of the two conditions. In this situation, surgeons may have to proceed to "blind" pancreaticoduodenectomy or attempt to confirm malignancy intraoperatively with frozen section (FS) histology.

METHODS

This study attempted to ascertain the false-negative and false-positive rates of undertaking pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) based on clinical suspicion (CS) or after intraoperative confirmation of malignancy using FS histology.

RESULTS

Of patients, 13.6% (nine out of 66) underwent a benign PD in the CS group; 6.7% of patients had a missed malignancy in the FS group (n = 62), but intraoperative histology prevented PD in 35% of patients with benign disease in the FS group. Specificity and sensitivity of intraoperative FS in detecting malignancy was 100% and 89.7%, respectively. Sensitivity of clinical assessment in detecting malignancy was 86.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, intraoperative confirmation of malignancy is effective and will avoid resection in patients with benign disease. However, for many surgeons the chance of missing a small tumour with a false-negative biopsy will be unacceptable and they would prefer to undertake a "blind" resection and accept the mortality risk of pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign disease.

Percutaneous palliation of pancreatic head cancer: randomized comparison of ePTFE/FEP-covered versus uncovered nitinol biliary stents

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene/fluorinated-ethylene-propylene (ePTFE/FEP)-covered stents with that of uncovered nitinol stents for the palliation of malignant jaundice caused by inoperable pancreatic head cancer. Eighty patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. Bare nitinol stents were used in half of the patients, and ePTFE/FEP-covered stents were used in the remaining patients. Patency, survival, complications, and mean cost were calculated in both groups. Mean patency was 166.0 ± 13.11 days for the bare-stent group and 234.0 ± 20.87 days for the covered-stent group (p = 0.007). Primary patency rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 77.5, 69.8, and 69.8% for the bare-stent group and 97.5, 92.2, and 87.6% for the covered-stent group, respectively. Mean secondary patency was 123.7 ± 22.5 days for the bare-stent group and 130.3 ± 21.4 days for the covered-stent group. Tumour ingrowth occurred exclusively in the bare-stent group in 27.5% of cases (p = 0.002). Median survival was 203.2 ± 11.8 days for the bare-stent group and 247.0 ± 20 days for the covered-stent group (p = 0.06). Complications and mean cost were similar in both groups. Regarding primary patency and ingrowth rate, ePTFE/FEP-covered stents have shown to be significantly superior to bare nitinol stents for the palliation of malignant jaundice caused by inoperable pancreatic head cancer and pose comparable cost and complications. Use of a covered stent does not significantly influence overall survival rate; nevertheless, the covered endoprosthesis seems to offer result in fewer reinterventions and better quality of patient life.

Tratamento endoscópico das lesões biliares

As técnicas cirúrgicas convencionais ofertam uma apropriada condição de cura na maioria dos pacientes com estreitamento biliar benigno. Nesta condição, no entanto, o reparo cirúrgico está associado com recorrência tardia da re-estenose em 10% a 30% dos pacientes. Neste contexto, os avanços tecnológicos na endoscopia terapêutica promoveram a possibilidade alternativa do tratamento efetivo destas obstruções benignas. Considerações em relação ao tempo de reospitalização e de procedimentos devem ser averiguados em detalhes e ponderados em relação á cirurgia. Estenoses malignas estão relacionadas á colangite, icterícia e dor e, consequentemente, com as alterações sistêmicas relacionadas com a sepsis biliar. A conduta endoscópica cria uma derivação do suco biliar para o duodeno, sendo uma verdadeira derivação biliodigestiva endoscópica e utilizando-se próteses plásticas ou metálicas. O propósito desta revisão é ofertar aos leitores a eficácia do tratamento endoscópico na estenose benigna e maligna biliopancreática.