Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), when selectively utilized, has been shown to hasten recovery with outcomes comparable to open approaches, but access may not be equitable. This study explored variation in utilization of MIPS for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with a primary pancreatic neoplasm from 2010 to 2020. Study participants had diagnoses of clinical or pathologic stage 1-3 disease and received curative-intent surgery. Multivariable analyses assessed the association between surgical approach and patient and disease factors.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 73,137 patients: 51,408 underwent open surgery and 21,729 received MIPS. In our multivariable analysis, Black race was associated with reduced odds of MIPS (AOR 0.88; p = 0.02), while older age (AOR 1.17; p = 0.01), later year of diagnosis (AOR 1.57; p < 0.001), and private insurance coverage (AOR 1.30; p = 0.05) were associated with increased odds. When patients with adenocarcinoma were analyzed in isolation, disparities in MIPS utilization persisted even when controlling for disease stage.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors like age, race, and insurance coverage appear to vary in the utilization of MIPS technologies for the treatment of pancreatic malignancy. Addressing variation with robust mixed methods approaches in the future is proposed to incorporate prospective interventions with highly annotated outcomes for additional study.

Perioperative textbook outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis in a Korean minimally invasive pancreatic surgery registry

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate the perioperative composite textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cohort study was conducted across 10 institutions and included 1552 patients who underwent MIPD registered with the Korean Study Group on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery between May 2007 and April 2020. We analyzed perioperative textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery after MIPD. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess outcomes based on the hospital volume of MIPD.

RESULTS

Among all patients, 21.8% underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. High-volume centers (performing >20 MIPD/year) performed 88.1% of the procedures. The incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was 11.5%. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) occurred in 15.1% of the cases. The 90-day mortality rate was 0.8%. The mean hospital stay was 13.7 days. Textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery success were achieved in 60.4% of patients, with higher rates observed in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers (62.2% vs. 44.7%, P <0.001). High-volume centers exhibited significantly lower conversion rates (5.4% vs. 12.5%, P =0.001), lower 90-day mortality (0.5% vs. 2.7%, P =0.001), and lower 90-day readmission rates (4.5% vs. 9.6%, P =0.006) than those low-volume centers.

CONCLUSION

MIPD could be performed safely with permissible perioperative outcomes, including textbook outcomes of pancreatic surgery, particularly in experienced centers. The findings of this study provided valuable insights for guiding surgical treatment decisions in periampullary disease.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: A favorable approach for frail patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Within the past decade, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has been increasingly adopted in high-volume cancer centers. Amid broader trends of a growing older population, the numbers of frail patients with cancer are expected to increase. In this study, we compared the postoperative outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy and minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in frail patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using the pancreatectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2021), we identified pancreaticoduodenectomy cases for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients with a modified frailty index ≥2 were considered frail. We performed 2:1 (open pancreaticoduodenectomy to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy) optimal pair propensity score matching for both patient- and disease-specific characteristics. We evaluated baseline covariate balance for homogeneity and assessed 30-day postoperative outcomes: complications, discharge destination, major morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 3,143 frail patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Of those, 275 (9%) underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of any complications compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (43% vs 54%; P < .001), major morbidity (29% vs 35%; P = .042), and nonhome discharge (12% vs 17%; P = .022). When comparing the 2 minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with fewer complications compared with laparoscopy (39% vs 51%; P = .040) and a lower mortality rate (1% vs 4%; P = .041) CONCLUSION: In frail patients with pancreatic cancer, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy was associated with better postoperative outcomes than open pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study builds on growing literature reporting that, when properly implemented, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with more favorable postoperative outcomes. Given the particularly high risk of complication in frail patients, implementing a preoperative frailty assessment can provide valuable insights to inform patient counseling.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015-July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) -1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy with major vein resection for pancreatic head cancer

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with major vein resection is a challenging procedure. Herein, we evaluated the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic vein resection in pancreatic head cancer with portal vein/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) invasion, and compared the survival rate following laparoscopic surgery with that following open surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients with pancreatic head cancer who underwent surgery performed by a single surgeon from January 2015 to December 2017. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to compare the disease-free survival, while Cox-proportional hazard models were used to analyze prognostic factors for survival.

RESULTS

Among 76 patients, 63 underwent open PD and 13 underwent laparoscopic PD with PV/SMV resection. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications, including portal vein stenosis and portal vein thrombus, recurrence of tumors, or pathological outcomes after surgery between the groups. There was also no significant difference in disease-free survival (p = .803) between the two groups. Additionally, the surgical method was not an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PD with major vein resection can be feasibly performed in select patients with abutment and focal narrowing of the PV/SMV in pancreatic head cancer.

Comparisons of short-term and long-term results between laparoscopic between open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The efficacy of pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic tumors is controversial. The study aims to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in the treatment of pancreatic tumors through systematic evaluation and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science databases were searched for clinical studies on the treatment of pancreatic tumors with LPD and OPD. The end time for the searches was 20 July 2022. Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen the articles, the Cochrane manual was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and the stata15.0 software was used for statistical analysis of the indicators. Results: In total, 16 articles were included, including two randomized controlled trials and 14 retrospective studies. Involving a total of 4416 patients, 1275 patients were included in the LPD group and 3141 patients in the OPD group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that: the operation time of LPD was longer than that of OPD [WMD = 56.14,95% CI (38.39,73.89), p = 0.001]; the amount of intraoperative blood loss of LPD was less than that of OPD [WMD = -120.82,95% CI (-169.33, -72.30), p = 0.001]. No significant difference was observed between LPD and OPD regarding hospitalization time [WMD = -0.5,95% CI (-1.35, 0.35), p = 0.250]. No significant difference was observed regarding postoperative complications [RR = 0.96,95% CI (0.86,1.07, p = 0.463]. And there was no significant difference regarding 1-year OS and 3-year OS: 1-year OS [RR = 1.02,95% CI (0.97,1.08), p = 0.417], 3-year OS [RR = 1.10 95% CI (0.75, 1.62), p = 0.614%]. Conclusion: In comparison with OPD, LPD leads to less blood loss but longer operation time, therefore the bleeding rate per unit time of LPD is less than that of OPD. LPD has obvious advantages. With the increase of clinical application of LPD, the usage of LPD in patients with pancreatic cancer has very good prospect. Due to the limitations of this paper, in future studies, more attention should be paid to high-quality, multi-center, randomized controlled studies.

Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the first choice surgical intervention for the radical treatment of pancreatic tumors. However, an anastomotic fistula is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a high mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are gaining interest. But the impact of these surgical methods on the risk of anastomosis has not been confirmed. Therefore, we aimed to integrate relevant clinical studies and explore the effects of these three surgical methods on the occurrence of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the RPD, LPD, and OPD. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic fistula (Pancreatic fistula, biliary leakage, gastrointestinal fistula) was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies including 10,026 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The rank of risk probability of pancreatic fistula for RPD (0.00) was better than LPD (0.37) and OPD (0.62). Thus, the analysis suggests the rank of risk of the postoperative pancreatic fistula for RPD, LPD, and OPD. The rank of risk probability for biliary leakage was similar for RPD (0.15) and LPD (0.15), and both were better than OPD (0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis provided ranking for three different types of pancreaticoduodenectomy. The RPD and LPD can effectively improve the quality of surgery and are safe as well as feasible for OPD.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is recommended as the optimal operation for resectable pancreatic head cancer. Minimally invasive surgery, which initially emerged as hybrid-laparoscopy and recently developed into total laparoscopy surgery, has been widely used for various abdominal surgeries. However, controversy persists regarding whether laparoscopic PD (LPD) is inferior to open PD (OPD) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment. Further studies, especially randomised clinical trials, are warranted to compare these two surgical techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The TJDBPS07 study is designed as a prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre noninferiority study. All participating pancreatic surgical centres comprise specialists who have performed no less than 104 LPDs and OPDs, respectively. A total of 200 strictly selected PD candidates diagnosed with PDAC will be randomised to receive LPD or OPD. The primary outcome is the 5-year overall survival rate, whereas the secondary outcomes include overall survival, disease-free survival, 90-day mortality, complication rate, comprehensive complication index, length of stay and intraoperative indicators. We hypothesise that LPD is not inferior to OPD for the treatment of resectable PDAC. The enrolment schedule is estimated to be 2 years and follow-up for each patient will be 5 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received approval from the Tongji Hospital Ethics Committee of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and monitor from an independent third-party organisation. Results of this trial will be presented in international meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03785743.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matching analysis of long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown the short-term feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are comparable to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). However, the long-term oncological safety of LPD in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LPD or OPD between July 2014 and July 2018 at our institution were identified, and those with resectable, pathologically diagnosed PDAC were analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the baseline characteristics between groups. Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

The original cohort consisted of 64 LPD and 80 OPD cases, in which, the laparoscopic group had a significantly longer median OS (25 vs. 17 months; P = 0.034). A higher proportion of laparoscopic patients received adjuvant therapy (51.6 vs. 32.5%; P = 0.021). PSM analysis identified 47 patient pairs. No significant differences in OS (21 vs. 17 months; P = 0.220) or adjuvant therapy utilization (53.2 vs. 38.3%; P = 0.248) were observed between the matched groups. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that receiving adjuvant therapy (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68), histopathological differentiation (poor vs. moderate-to-well differentiation; HR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26-2.95), and sex (female vs. male, HR = 0.47, 95% CI, 0.30-0.75) were independent predictors of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LPD can be comparable to OPD in terms of long-term safety for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma when performed in a high-volume center.

The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma showed similar survival: a case-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the oncological benefit of laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for ampullary carcinoma. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological results of these two approaches.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 103 patients who underwent PD for ampullary carcinoma, including 31 LPD and 72 OPD, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched on a 1:2 basis for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, and preoperative biliary drainage. Short- and long-term outcomes of LPD and OPD were compared.

RESULTS

The 31 LPD were matched (1:2) to 62 OPD. LPD was associated with a shorter operative time (298 vs. 341 min, p = 0.02) than OPD and similar blood loss (361 vs. 341 mL, p = 0.747), but with more intra- and post-operative transfusions (29 vs. 8%, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 vs. 2%), grades B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (22 vs. 21%), delayed gastric emptying (23 vs. 35%), bleeding (22 vs. 11%), Clavien ≥ III morbidity (22 vs. 19%), or the length of hospital stay (26 vs. 21 days) between LPD and OPD, respectively, but there were more reinterventions (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.009). Pathological characteristics were similar for tumor size (21 vs. 22 mm), well differentiated tumors (41 vs. 38%), the number of harvested (23 vs. 26) or invaded lymph nodes (48 vs. 52%), R0 resection (84 vs. 90%), and other subtypes (T1/2, T3/4, phenotype). With a comparable mean follow-up (41 vs. 37 months, p = 0.59), there was no difference in 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (p = 0.725) or recurrence-free survival (p = 0.155) which were (93, 74, 67% vs. 97, 79, 76%) and (85, 58, 58% vs. 90, 73, 73%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a similar long-term oncological results between LPD and OPD for ampullary carcinoma. However, the higher morbidity observed with LPD compared to OPD, restricting its use to experienced centers.

Focused ultrasound tumour ablation in small animal oncology

The cancer incidence rates for humans and animals remain high, and efforts to improve cancer treatment are crucial. Cancer treatment for solid tumours includes both treatment of the primary tumour and of metastasis. Surgery is commonly employed to resect primary and metastatic tumours, but is invasive, and is not always the optimal treatment modality. Prevention and treatment of metastatic disease often utilizes a multimodal approach, but metastasis remains a major cause of death for both human and veterinary cancer patients. Focused ultrasound (FUS) tumour ablation techniques represent a novel non-invasive approach to treating cancer. FUS ablation is precise, thus sparing adjacent critical structures while ablating the tumour. FUS ablation can occur in a thermal or non-thermal fashion. Thermal FUS ablation, also known as high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation, destroys tumour cells via heat, whereas non-thermal FUS, known as histotripsy, ablates tumour cells via mechanical disintegration of tissue. Not only can HIFU and histotripsy ablate tumours, they also demonstrate potential to upregulate the host immune system towards an anti-tumour response. The aim of this report is provide a description of HIFU and histotripsy tumour ablation, with a focus on the basic principles of their ablation mechanisms and their clinical applicability in the field of veterinary oncology.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Current topics in the surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly malignant. While cancers in other organs have shown clear improvements in 5-year survival, the 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is approximately 10%. Early relapse and metastasis are not uncommon, making it difficult to achieve an acceptable prognosis even after complete surgical resection of the pancreas. Studies have been performed on various treatments to improve the prognosis of PDAC, and multidisciplinary approaches including non-surgical treatments have led to gradual improvement. In the present literature review, we have described the significance of anatomical and biological resectability criteria, the concept of R0 resection in surgical treatment, the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the remarkable development of perioperative chemotherapy, the effectiveness of conversion surgery for unresectable PDAC, and ongoing challenges in PDAC treatment. We also provide an essential update on these subjects by focusing on recent trends and topics.

Current statement and safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the pancreas

Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of a minimally invasive approach is accumulating thanks to prospective and randomized controlled studies. Minimally invasive surgery provides advantages to the surgeon due to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot, but should be considered only in selected patients and in high-volume centers. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant tumors has established a secure position over open distal pancreatectomy, since it is associated with a shorter hospital stay, reduced blood loss, and equivalent complication rates. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma appears to be a feasible, safe, and oncologically equivalent technique in experienced hands. On the other hand, the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy. The choice of either technique among open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches depends on surgeons' experience and hospital resources with a focus on patient safety. Further studies are needed to prove the perioperative and oncological advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery in the pancreas. Here, we review the current status of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and its safe implementation.