Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Nationwide use and Outcome of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in IDEAL Stage IV following a Training Program and Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nationwide long-term uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) after a nationwide training program and randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials demonstrated the superiority of MIDP over open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of functional recovery and hospital stay. Data on implementation of MIDP on a nationwide level are lacking.

METHODS

Nationwide audit-based study including consecutive patients after MIDP and ODP in 16 centers in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014 to 2021). The cohort was divided into three periods: early implementation, during the LEOPARD randomized trial, and late implementation. Primary endpoints were MIDP implementation rate and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 1496 patients were included with 848 MIDP (56.5%) and 648 ODP (43.5%). From the early to the late implementation period, the use of MIDP increased from 48.6% to 63.0% and of robotic MIDP from 5.5% to 29.7% ( P <0.001). The overall use of MIDP (45% to 75%) and robotic MIDP (1% to 84%) varied widely between centers ( P <0.001). In the late implementation period, 5/16 centers performed >75% of procedures as MIDP. After MIDP, in-hospital mortality and textbook outcome remained stable over time. In the late implementation period, ODP was more often performed in ASA score III-IV (24.9% vs. 35.7%, P =0.001), pancreatic cancer (24.2% vs. 45.9%, P <0.001), vascular involvement (4.6% vs. 21.9%, P <0.001), and multivisceral involvement (10.5% vs. 25.3%, P <0.001). After MIDP, shorter hospital stay (median 7 vs. 8 d, P <0.001) and less blood loss (median 150 vs. 500 mL, P <0.001), but more grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (24.4% vs. 17.2%, P =0.008) occurred as compared to ODP.

CONCLUSION

A sustained nationwide implementation of MIDP after a successful training program and randomized trial was obtained with satisfactory outcomes. Future studies should assess the considerable variation in the use of MIDP between centers and, especially, robotic MIDP.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023

Background

With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.

Methods

World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.

Results

After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.

Conclusions

The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Which Factors Are Associated with Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes' Optimization with the Application of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program?

Background: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) represents the best therapeutic option for patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms (PNs). The enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is widely used for treating patients with PN to speed up postoperative recovery. This study aims to describe our institute's experience in the application of fast recovery protocol in a cohort of patients treated with DP, identifying predictors facilitating a decrease in the length of hospital stay. Patient and Methods: Were retrospectively enrolled 60 consecutive cases of DP performed from January 2016 to June 2022 in patients treated with enhanced recovery protocol, 25% of them were treated with spleen preserving procedure. Single-variable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the potential association between patient characteristics and the probability of postoperative complications. Standard linear regression models were used for length of stay, number of postoperative days (PODs) from surgery to full bowel function recovery, and PODs to the interruption of intravenous analgesia administration. Results: Thirty-four (57%) patients underwent open surgery and 26 (43%) laparoscopic surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and spleen-preserving procedures experienced a lower complication rate (P = .037), shorter length of stay, and time of analgesic requirements. With single-variable logistic regression models patients treated with laparoscopic surgery had statistically significant higher recovery times in terms of nasogastric tube removal (P = .004) and early enteral nutrition (P = .001). Conclusion: Continual refinement with enhanced recovery protocol for treating PN patients based on perioperative counseling and surgical decision-making is crucial to reduce patient morbidity and time for recovery.

Long-term quality of life is better after laparoscopic compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Three randomized controlled trials have reported improved functional recovery after Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). Long-term results regarding quality of life (QoL) are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term QoL of LPD versus OPD.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

A monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among patients < 75 years old who underwent LPD or OPD for a benign or premalignant pathology in a high-volume center (2011-2021). An electronic three-part questionnaire was sent to eligible patients, including two diseases specific QoL questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and a pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) and a body image questionnaire. Patient demographics and postoperative data were collected and compared between LPD and OPD.

RESULTS

Among 948 patients who underwent PD (137 LPD, 811 OPD), 170 were eligible and 111 responded (58 LPD and 53 OPD). LPD versus OPD showed no difference in mean age (51 vs. 55 years, p = 0.199) and female gender (40% vs. 45%, p = 0.631), but LPD showed lower BMI (24 vs 26; p = 0.028) and higher preoperative pancreatitis (29% vs 13%; p = 0.041). The postoperative outcome showed similar Clavien-Dindo ≥ III morbidity (19% vs. 23%; p = 0.343) and length of stay (24 vs. 21 days, p = 0.963). After a similar median follow-up (3 vs. 3 years; p = 0.122), LPD vs OPD patients reported higher QoL (QLQ-C30: 49.6 vs 56.3; p = 0.07), better pancreas specific health status score (PAN20: 50.5 vs 55.5; p = 0.002), physical functioning (p = 0.002), and activities limitations (p = 0.02). Scar scores were better after LPD regarding esthetics (p = 0.001), satisfaction (p = 0.04), chronic pain at rest (p = 0.036), moving (p = 0.011) or in daily activities (p = 0.02). There was no difference in digestive symptoms (p = 0.995).

CONCLUSION

This monocentric study found improved long-term QoL in patients undergoing LPD, as compared to OPD, for benign and premalignant diseases. These results could be considered when choosing the surgical approach in these patients.

Minimally invasive versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an entropy balancing analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS) remain to be established in pancreatic cancer (PDAC) METHODS: Eighty-five open (O)-RAMPS were compared to 93 MI-RAMPS. The entropy balance matching approach was used to compare the two cohorts, eliminating the selection bias. Three models were created. Model 1 made O-RAMPS equal to the MI-RAMPS cohort (i.e., compared the two procedures for resectable PDAC); model 2 made MI-RAMPS equal to O-RAMPS (i.e., compared the two procedures for borderline-resectable PDAC); model 3, compared robotic and laparoscopic RAMPS.

RESULTS

O-RAMPS and MI-RAMPS showed "non-small" differences for BMI, comorbidity, back pain, tumor size, vascular resection, anterior or posterior RAMPS, multi-visceral resection, stump management, grading, and neoadjuvant therapy. Before reweighting, O-RAMPS had fewer clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (CR-POPF) (20.0% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.003), while MI-RAMPS had a higher mean of lymph nodes (25.7 vs. 31.7; p = 0.011). In model 1, MI-RAMPS and O-RAMPS achieved similar results. In model 2, O-RAMPS was associated with lower comprehensive complication index scores (MD = 11.2; p = 0.038), and CR-POPF rates (OR = 0.2; p = 0.001). In model 3, robotic-RAMPS had a higher probability of negative resection margins.

CONCLUSION

In patients with anatomically resectable PDAC, MI-RAMPS is feasible and as safe as O-RAMPS.

Laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: the choice and the future

INTRODUCTION

Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is currently well established as a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedure, using either a laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approach.

METHODS

Out of 83 DP performed between January 2018 and March 2022, 57 cases (68.7%) were performed using MIS: 35 LDP and 22 RDP (da Vinci Xi). We have assessed the experience with the two techniques and analyzed the value of the robotic approach. Cases of conversion have been examined in detail.

RESULTS

The mean operative times for LDP and RDP were 201.2 (SD 47.8) and 247.54 (SD 35.8) minutes, respectively (P = NS). No differences were observed in length of hospital stay or conversion rate: 6 (5-34) vs. 5.6 (5-22) days, and 4 (11.4%) vs. 3 (13.6%) cases, respectively (P = NS). The readmission rate was 3/35 patients (11.4%) treated with LDP and 6/22 (27.3%) cases of RDP (P = NS). There were no differences in morbidity (Dindo-Clavien ≥ III) between the two groups. Mortality was one case in the robotic group (a patient with early conversion due to vascular involvement). The rate of R0 resection was greater and statistically significant in the RDP group (77.1% vs. 90.9%) (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. Surgical planning and stepwise implementation based on prior experience help surgeons successfully perform technically demanding procedures. RDP could be the approach of choice in distal pancreatectomy, and it is not inferior to LDP.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in resectable distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), we hypothesize that minimally invasive DP (MIDP) carries short-term benefits over ODP (ODP) in the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

METHODS

NSQIP database was queried to select patients who underwent DP for PDAC with available report on POPF. The population was divided into No-POPF vs. POPF groups. In each group, propensity-score matching was applied to compare 30-day outcomes of ODP vs. MIDP.

RESULTS

There were 2,824 patients; 2,332 (82%) had No-POPF and 492 (21%) had POPF. In No-POPF patients, 921 pairs were matched between ODP and MIDP. MIDP patients had slightly longer operations (227 vs. 205 minutes; p < 0.001), but lower rates of surgical site complications (1% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.002), postoperative transfusion (7.1% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.003), overall morbidity (21.1% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.009), and one-day shorter median length of stay (LOS) (5 vs. 6 days; p = 0.001). In the POPF group, 172 pairs were matched. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, reoperation, LOS, and home discharge. Similar conclusions were drawn in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

CONCLUSION

POPF is common following DP for PDAC. In the absence of POPF, MIDP is associated with fewer postoperative morbidities and shorter LOS.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive (MI) surgery has been widely adopted to treat left-sided pancreatic cancer. However, outcomes are not clearly defined.

MATERIALS

Retrospective cohort study utilizing NCDB and NSQIP data.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2016 were included (n = 7347). Utilizing NSQIP (n = 2406), patients were divided into two groups: intention-to-treat (ITT) MI (including MI converted to open, n = 929) and open (n = 1477). Patients undergoing open pancreatectomy were more likely to have longer length of stay (6 vs. 5 days, p=<0.001). On multivariate analysis, open procedures were not associated with mortality (OR 1.24; CI 0.51-3.30, p = 0.64), serious complications (OR 1.03; CI 0.90-1.37, p = 0.79), and any complications (OR 1.07; CI 0.86-1.32, p = 0.56). NCDB patients (n = 4941) were also divided into two groups, ITT MI (n = 1,769, 36%) and open group (n = 3,172, 64%). The median survival was lower in open procedure patients, 23 vs. 27.1 months (p < 0.001). This finding was maintained on multivariable analysis (HR 1.16; CI 1.03-1.32, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Based on these data, MI distal pancreatectomy could be considered a standard of care for pancreatic cancer when technically feasible. Although morbidity and mortality were similar, the laparoscopic approach had a shorter length of stay and could hasten recovery.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database.

BACKGROUND

Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy

Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.

A more radical perspective on surgical approach and outcomes in pancreatic cancer-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains a dismal disease and is expected to become an even greater burden in the near future. This review focuses on the different surgical aspects for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), distal and total pancreatectomy (TP), incorporating lessons from both the western and eastern visions in treating pancreatic cancer.

Methods

We conducted an extensive literature review through PubMed, prioritizing papers published in the last 5 years, but older emblematic papers were also included. We included articles that explored the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with focus on the surgical aspect and strategies to improve outcomes. References of selected articles were also reviewed to identify any missed studies. Only papers in English were included.

Key Content and Findings

As evidence continues to build, it is clear that both systemic and surgical therapies have a fundamental and complementary role. State of art surgical treatment encompasses complete mesopancreas excision for radical lymphadenectomy. Preoperative planning of dissection planes, extensive knowledge of vascular anatomic variations, oncological principles and expertise for vascular resections are mandatory to perform a more radical operation, in pursuit of improved outcomes.

Conclusions

Based on current data, patient selection remains key and a more radical surgical approach brings more accomplishing results bringing as to believe that more is better.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA): an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background

The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking.

Methods

In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265).

Findings

Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; p_{non-inferiority} = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group.

Interpretation

This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Funding

Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is more cost-effective than open resection: results from a Swedish randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is being implemented worldwide. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care perspective.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the randomized controlled trial LAPOP, where 60 patients were randomized to open or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. For the follow-up of two years, resource use from a health care perspective was recorded, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L. The per-patient mean cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using nonparametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. The mean health care costs were lower, €3863 (95% CI: -€8020 to €385), for the laparoscopic group. Postoperative quality of life improved with laparoscopic resection and resulted in a gain in QALYs of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25). The laparoscopic group had lower costs and improved QALYs in 79% of bootstrap samples. With a cost-per-QALY threshold of €50 000, 95.4% of the bootstrap samples were in favour of laparoscopic resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with numerically lower health care costs and improvements in QALYs compared with the open approach. The results support the ongoing transition from open to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatectomy: Robotic and Laparoscopic Developments

Minimally invasive pancreatectomy is increasingly used. Although offering potential advantages over open approaches, minimally invasive pancreatectomy has many challenges to maintain high-quality of oncologic resection. Multiple patient and surgical factors should be considered in planning laparoscopic or robotic resection, including the learning curve required to produce proficiency. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and other pancreatic resections, a safe, margin-negative resection remains the goal. National and societal guidelines for the adoption of minimally invasive pancreatectomy are ongoing and will continue to be important as these techniques are further adopted.

Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies

BACKGROUND

We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.

METHODS

An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

The effect of minimally invasive or open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy on pancreatic cancer: A multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol

Background

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) has been proven to improve R0 resection and lymph harvest in treating patients with distal pancreatic cancer. The development of minimally invasive surgery has advantages in postoperative recovery. Therefore, minimally invasive (MI-) RAMPS may combine the advantages of both benefits to improve survival. Nevertheless, evidence to validate the safety and efficacy of MI-RAMPS is limited.

Method/Design

The MIRROR trial will be the first multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial to investigate the outcome of MI-RAMPS. The hypothesis is that MI-RAMPS is superior in postoperative recovery. The primary outcome is the length of postoperative stay. Based on the hypothesis and primary outcome, the sample size is 250 patients (125 participants in each group). The trial will investigate factors related to surgical safety, short-term outcome, pathological assessment, and survival as secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

This study will offer a relatively higher level of evidence to further illustrate the accessibility and benefits of MI-RAMPS for the treatment of distal pancreatic cancer.

Clinical Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03770559.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status on Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. While surgical resection is the only treatment option with curative intent, most patients die of locoregional and/or distant recurrence. The prognostic impact of the resection margin status has received much attention. However, the evidence is almost exclusively related to pancreatoduodenectomies, while corresponding data for distal pancreatectomy specimens are limited. The key data, such as the rate of microscopic margin involvement (“R1”), the site of margin involvement, and the impact of R1 on patient outcome, are divergent between studies and do not currently allow any general conclusions. The main reasons for the variability in the published data are the small size of the study cohorts and their heterogeneity, as well as the marked divergence in pathology examination practices. The latter is a consequence of the lack of concrete guidance, both for grossing and microscopic examination. The increasing administration of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy introduces a further factor of uncertainty as the conventional definition of a tumour-free margin (“R0”) based on 1 mm clearance is inadequate for these specimens. This review discusses the published data regarding the prognostic impact of margin status in distal pancreatectomy specimens along with the challenges and uncertainties that are related to the assessment of the margins.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Tumour Size and T-Stage in Pancreatic Cancer Resection Specimens Depend on the Pathology Examination Approach

In the eighth edition of the TNM classification for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), stages T1 to T3 are defined by tumour size, size measurement being deemed objective and accurate. This study investigated whether various, currently used approaches to tumour measurement result in different tumour sizes and differences in T-stage assignment. In a series of 315 resected PDAC, tumour sizes were measured as follows: macroscopically in a single or in two perpendicular planes and with or without microscopic corroboration. Comparison of the resulting tumour sizes showed that both macroscopic measurement in two planes and microscopic corroboration gave significantly different results (p < 0.001). Compared to the most simple approach (macroscopic measurement in one plane), the comprehensive approach (macroscopic measurement in two planes with microscopic corroboration) resulted in a larger tumour size in 263 (83%) cases (mean absolute size difference: 10 mm; mean relative size change: 36%). T-stage assignment differed in 142 (45%) cases between the simple and comprehensive approach and affected 87%, 38% and 48% of the cases deemed to be stage T1, T2 and T3, respectively. In conclusion, tumour size and T-stage are highly approach-dependent. Consensus on an accurate method is required to ensure comparability of these basic data.