Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Results

The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.

Limitations

We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.

Conclusions

In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).

Future work

More randomised controlled trials are necessary.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection.

METHODS

Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Distal pancreatectomy with or without radical approach, vascular resections and splenectomy: Easier does not always mean easy

Because distal pancreatectomy (DP) has no reconstructive steps and less frequent vascular involvement, it is thought to be the easier counterpart of pancreaticoduodenectomy. This procedure has a high surgical risk and the overall incidences of perioperative morbidity (mainly pancreatic fistula), and mortality are still high, in addition to the challenges that accompany delayed access to adjuvant therapies (if any) and prolonged impairment of daily activities. Moreover, surgery to remove malignancy of the body or tail of the pancreas is associated with poor long-term oncological outcomes. From this perspective, new surgical approaches, and aggressive techniques, such as radical antegrade modular pancreato-splenectomy and DP with celiac axis resection, could lead to improved survival in those affected by more locally advanced tumors. Conversely, minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries and the avoidance of routine concomitant splenectomy have been developed to reduce the burden of surgical stress. The purpose of ongoing surgical research has been to achieve significant reductions in perioperative complications, length of hospital stays and the time between surgery and the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because a dedicated multidisciplinary team is crucial to pancreatic surgery, hospital and surgeon volumes have been confirmed to be associated with better outcomes in patients affected by benign, borderline, and malignant diseases of the pancreas. The purpose of this review is to examine the state of the art in distal pancreatectomies, with a special focus on minimally invasive approaches and oncological-directed techniques. The widespread reproducibility, cost-effectiveness and long-term results of each oncological procedure are also taken into deep consideration.

Economic Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: a Literature Review

PURPOSE

Pancreatic cancer is characterized by its high mortality, usually attributed to its diagnosis in already advanced stages. This article aims at presenting an overview of the economic burden of pancreatic cancer in Europe.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted. It made use of the search engines EconLit, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science, and retrieved articles published after December 31st, 1992, and before April 1st, 2020. Study characteristics and cost information were extracted. Cost per patient and cost per patient per month (PPM) were calculated, and drivers of estimate heterogeneity was analysed. Results were converted into 2019 Euros.

RESULTS

The literature review yielded 26 studies on the economic burden attributable to pancreatic cancer in Europe. Cost per patient was on average 40,357 euros (median 15,991), while figures PPM were on average 3,656 euros (median 1,536). Indirect costs were found to be on average 154,257 euros per patient or 14,568 euros PPM, while direct costs 20,108 euros per patient and 2,004 euros PPM. Nevertheless, variation on cost estimations was large and driven by study methodology, patient sample characteristics, such as type of tumour and cancer stage and cost components included in analyses, such as type of procedure.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic cancer direct costs PPM are in the upper bound relative to other cancer types; however, direct per patient costs are likely to be lower because of shorter survival. Indirect costs are substantial, mainly attributed to high mortality.

Economic cost–utility analysis of stage-directed gastric cancer treatment

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) treatment levies substantial financial burden on health services. Potentially curative surgery with or without chemotherapy is offered to patients with locoregional disease. This study aimed to examine treatment costs related to life-years gained in patients having potentially curative treatment (gastrectomy) and those receiving best supportive care (BSC).

Methods

Some 398 consecutive patients with GC were classified according to treatment modality (116 BSC, 282 gastrectomy). Cost calculations for 1 year’s treatment from referral were made according to network diagnostic, staging and treatment algorithms. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Results

GC median survival after BSC was 8 months, costing €5413, compared with gastrectomy median survival of 34 months, costing €22 753 for 1 year’s treatment: cost per life-year gained €9319. Cost incurred for stage I GC was €22 434, stage II €23 498, stage III €22 445, and stage IV €22 032. Based on these values, the cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for BSC for stage I GC was –€8335 stage II –€8952, stage III –€11 317, and stage IV –€25 669.

Conclusion

Potentially curative treatment that included gastrectomy improved OS four-fold compared with BSC and was cost-effective at national thresholds of readiness to pay per QALY.

Surgery for pancreatic cancer: current controversies and challenges

Two areas that remain the focus of improvement in pancreatic cancer include high post-operative morbidity and inability to uniformly translate surgical success into long-term survival. This narrative review addresses specific aspects of pancreatic cancer surgery, including neoadjuvant therapy, vascular resections, extended pancreatectomy, extent of lymphadenectomy and current status of minimally invasive surgery. R0 resection confers longer disease-free survival and overall survival. Vascular and adjacent organ resections should be undertaken after neoadjuvant therapy, only if R0 resection can be ensured based on high-quality preoperative imaging, and that too, with acceptable post-operative morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy does not offer any advantage over standard lymphadenectomy. Although minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies offers some short-term benefits over open distal pancreatectomy, safety remains a concern with minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. Strict adherence to principles and judicious utilization of surgery within a multimodality framework is the way forward.

A Meal Replacement Program for the Treatment of Obesity: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Swiss Payer's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a disease associated with high direct medical costs and high indirect costs resulting from productivity loss. The high prevalence of obesity generates the need for payers to identify cost-effective weight loss approaches. Among various weight management techniques, the OPTI (Optifast®) program is a clinically recognised total meal replacement diet that can lead to significant weight loss and reduction in complications. This study's objective is to assess OPTI program's cost-effectiveness in Switzerland in comparison to "no intervention" and pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

An event-driven decision-analytic model was used to estimate the payer's cost savings through the reimbursement of OPTI program over a 1-year period as well as a lifetime in Switzerland. The analysis was performed on a broad population of people with obesity with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 30 kg/m2 following the OPTI program vs two comparators (liraglutide and "no intervention"). The model incorporated a higher risk of complications due to an increased BMI and their related healthcare costs. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official Swiss price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The primary perspective was that of a Swiss payer. Scenario analyses - for example, for patients with existing complications (such as myocardial infarction, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus) or severe obesity - were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The OPTI program results in cost savings of CHF 20,886 (€ 18,724) and CHF 15,382 (€ 13,790) per person compared with "no intervention" and liraglutide 3 mg, respectively. In addition, OPTI program led to 1.133 and 0.734 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained respectively against its comparators. Scenario analyses showed similar outcomes with cost savings and QALYs gained.

CONCLUSION

OPTI program is a dominant strategy compared to "no intervention" and liraglutide 3 mg as it leads to both cost savings and QALY gain. Therefore, reimbursing the OPTI program for patients with obesity would be cost-effective for Swiss payers.

[Evidence in minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas]

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery lags behind the development of other fields of application of minimally invasive surgery. After a very slow development over the last two decades minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has currently gained wider acceptance especially in centers. This is due if nothing else, to the increasing availability of robotic assistance systems, which provide maneuverable instruments as well as a 3‑dimensional and enlarged view. Meanwhile, the technical feasibility for even complex pancreatic resections has been shown. This gives rise to the question whether laparoscopic or robotic techniques can generate equal or better results (evidence) with respect to perioperative morbidity, survival after oncological resection and the quality of life. As with all innovative techniques, which are implemented in surgery, the transferability to a wider audience, teaching methods and cost-effectiveness have to be evaluated. This article presents the current scientific evidence for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic head and left-sided pancreatic surgery.

Splenic-vasculature involvement is associated with poor prognosis in resected distal pancreatic cancer

Background

Distal pancreatic carcinoma is one of the most lethal cancers largely due to its high incidence of distant metastasis. This study aims to assess the prognostic value of splenic-vasculature involvement in resected distal pancreatic carcinoma.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we collected the clinicopathologic information of 454 patients with pancreatic cancer and performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with an emphasis on the prognostic value of splenic-artery and -vein involvement.

Results

Univariate analysis revealed that larger tumor size, non-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (non-IPMN)-associated adenocarcinoma, poor differentiation, stage pT3, nodal metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and pathologic and radiographic evidence of splenic-vein invasion were significantly associated with shorter PFS and OS (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed non-IPMN-associated adenocarcinoma, stage pT3, stage pN1–2, and post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy as independent risk factors for both PFS and OS, and larger tumor size and radiographic evidence of splenic-artery invasion as predictors of PFS only.

Conclusion

Guidelines should be developed for a uniform approach with regard to the examination and reporting of the status of the splenic vasculature when dealing with distal-pancreatic-cancer specimens.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019130504.

The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking.

METHODS

The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

RESULTS

After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.

CONCLUSION

The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

National survey on Pancreatic Surgery Units

INTRODUCTION

The technical, human, scientific and treatment characteristics of the Units that manage complex pathologies have not been studied in depth.

METHODS

Multi-institutional descriptive study (survey) developed jointly by the Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Division of the Spanish Association of Surgeons and the Spanish Chapter of the IHPBA (International Hepatopancreatobiliary Association) on the characteristics of the Units where pancreatic surgery is performed in Spain.

RESULTS

82 surveys were sent. 69 medical centers responded (84%), belonging to 16 autonomous regions of Spain. The total population of these regions was 23,183,262 (50% of the Spanish population). The average number of beds per hospital was 673. The unit that performs pancreatic surgery is a Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery Unit or HPB and Liver Transplant Surgery Unit in 56 hospitals (77%). The average number of surgeons is 4.5 per Unit. Fifty-five Units (80%) lack specific anesthetists. The number of pancreatectomies performed during 2017 at the hospitals surveyed was 1,315 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 566 distal pancreatectomies (DP) and 178 total pancreaticoduodenectomies (TPD). The mean per hospital was 19.1 PD, 8.2 DP and 2.6 TPD. PD was usually performed using a classic approach, with pancreatojejunostomy, single-loop technique, antecolic gastrojejunostomy and using two drain tubes. Only 7 Units performed PD laparoscopically and only 13 units did not perform laparoscopic DP.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides updated information about the majority of the Units where pancreatic surgery is performed in Spain and could also serve as a starting point for prospective multicenter studies.

Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial)

Background

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost‐effectiveness and impact on disease‐specific quality of life have yet to be established.

Methods

The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot‐assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease‐specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality‐adjusted life‐year.

Results

All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot‐assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias‐corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost‐effective than the open approach at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality‐adjusted life‐year at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease‐specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot‐assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost‐effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality‐adjusted life‐years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer

In pancreatic cancer, resection combined with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy remains the only chance for cure and/or prolonged survival. A minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer has gained increased acceptance and popularity. The aim of minimally invasive surgery of the pancreas includes limiting trauma, decreasing length of hospitalization, lessening cost, decreasing blood loss, and allowing for a more meticulous oncologic dissection. New advances and routine use in practice have helped progress the field making the minimally invasive approach more feasible. In this article, the minimally invasive surgical approaches to proximal, central, and distal pancreatic cancer are described and literature reviewed.

SIRT1 in Secretory Organ Cancer

Mammalian silent information regulator 1 (SIRT1) is reported to play a role in cancers of the secretory organs, including thyroid, pancreatic endocrine, and ovarian tumors [1, 2, 3, 4]. A recent meta-analysis conducted on 37 selected studies of human cancers analyzed the correlations of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) with SIRT1 expression [5]. This study reported that SIRT1 overexpression was associated with a worse OS in liver and lung cancers, while it was not correlated with OS in breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or gastric carcinoma. Collectively, the meta-analysis revealed that an unfavorable OS was associated with SIRT1 expression for solid malignancies. Given the growing importance of this class of lysine/histone deacetylases in human endocrine malignancies, a rational and focused literature assessment is desirable in light of future clinical translations.