Extended versus peripancreatic lymph node dissection for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer

The Role of Non-Peripancreatic Lymph Nodes in the Survival of Patients Suffering from Pancreatic Cancer of the Body and Tail: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Studies

Lymph nodes (LNs)' metastases have a well-known detrimental impact on the survival outcomes of patients suffering from pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. However, the extent of the lymphadenectomy for this tumor location is still debated. The aim of this study was to systematically review the current literature to explore the incidence and the prognostic impact of non-peripancreatic lymph nodes (PLNs) in patients suffering from pancreatic cancer of the body and tail. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The primary endpoint was to assess the impact of non-PLNs on overall survival (OS). As a secondary endpoint, the pooled frequencies of different non-PLN stations' metastatic patterns according to tumor location were explored. Eight studies were included in data synthesis. An increased risk of death for patients with positive non-PLNs was detected (HR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.81-4.91; p < 0.0001). Meta-analysis of proportions pointed out a 7.1% pooled proportion of nodal infiltration in stations 8-9. The pooled frequency for station 12 metastasis was 4.8%. LN stations 14-15 were involved in 11.4% of cases, whereas station 16 represented a site of metastasis in 11.5% of cases. Despite its potential beneficial effect on survival outcome, a systematic extended lymphadenectomy could not be recommended yet for patients suffering from PDAC of the body/tail.

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) versus conventional distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: findings of a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score matching study

PURPOSE

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) has been reported to achieve high rates of a negative margin and resected metastatic lymph nodes. However, many studies have used historical controls and the results remain controversial. We conducted this study to compare the surgical and long-term outcomes of RAMPS vs. conventional distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

The subjects of this multicenter retrospective study were 106 patients who underwent curative resection for left-sided pancreatic cancer between 2012 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

The RAMPS group had more advanced T (T3/T4) and N stages (N1/N2) and a larger tumor size than the conventional group (T stage, p = 0.04; N stage, p = 0.02; tumor size, p = 0.04). The RAMPS group had more harvested metastatic lymph nodes (p = 0.02). After propensity-score matching, 37 patients from each group were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference in RFS (p = 0.463) or OS (p = 0.383) between the groups. Multivariate analyses revealed the completion of chemotherapy to be an independent factor for RFS and OS (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the RFS or OS between RAMPS and conventional DP in this series. RAMPS may be an option for R0 resection of advanced tumors; however, postoperative chemotherapy has a greater influence than the surgical procedure on the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer.

Is Neoadjuvant Treatment Justified in Clinical T1 Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma?

Introduction: Studies on neoadjuvant treatment have been actively conducted in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. However, neoadjuvant treatment effectiveness, especially in clinical T1 stage patients, still needs to be determined. We comparatively evaluated the oncologic benefit of preoperative neoadjuvant treatment in clinical T1 stage pancreatic cancer. Methods: Data from two centers were included in the comparative analysis, with overall and recurrence-free survival as primary outcomes, between January 2010 and December 2017. Results: In total, 45 patients were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Two patients in the neoadjuvant group were excluded because of distant metastasis during neoadjuvant treatment. Finally, 43 patients underwent a pancreatectomy for clinical T1 pancreatic cancer, of whom, 35 and 8 patients underwent upfront surgery and neoadjuvant treatment, respectively. Overall survival was similar in the two study groups (5-year overall survival rate: neoadjuvant group, 75%; upfront surgery group, 43.9%, p = 0.066). Conclusions: In our study on patients with clinical T1 stage pancreatic cancer, no significant differences were reported in the oncological outcome in the neoadjuvant therapy group. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to determine the survival benefits of neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Role of Node Dissection in Pancreatic Tumor Resection

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease, and, even with modern therapies, the mortality has not decreased significantly in decades. The prognostic importance of lymph node status is well defined; however, the role of extended lymphadenectomy to improve local recurrence and overall survival remains debated. Six randomized controlled trials have evaluated the extent of lymph node dissection in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to review the current literature to evaluate the role of lymphadenectomy in pancreatic cancer. The impact of each trial and its contribution to the literature is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple randomized trials have failed to note an improvement in overall survival with extended lymphadenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Rather, extended lymphadenectomy was associated with increased morbidity, operating room time, and length of stay.

Middle segment-preserving pancreatectomy for multifocal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma located in the head and tail of the pancreas: a case report

A 77-year-old woman with a solitary existence was referred to our hospital for the treatment of pancreatic tumors. Computed tomography revealed an 18-mm mass in the pancreatic head that had invaded the right side of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) and a 32-mm mass in the pancreatic tail. We performed middle segment-preserving pancreatectomy (MSPP) with SMV resection and reconstruction. The TNM classifications were T2, N1, M0, stage IIB in the pancreatic head, and T2, N0, M0, stage IB in the pancreatic tail, respectively. Postoperatively, the blood glucose was well controlled using only hypoglycemic drug, and insulin preparation was not necessary. No fatty diarrhea was found using a pancreatic enzyme supplement. After 9 months of follow-up, no recurrence was found. MSPP for pancreatic head and tail carcinomas seemed acceptable for both preserving the postoperative quality of life and ensuring curative resection especially in elderly patient with a solitary existence.

Should a standard lymphadenectomy include the No. 9 lymph nodes for body and tail pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to use a retrospective data base to investigate whether a standard lymphadenectomy during distal pancreatectomy should include the No. 9 lymph nodes (LNs) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) located in the body and tail of the pancreas.

METHODS

Data from 169 patients undergoing curative distal pancreatectomy for PDAC between Jan 1, 2013 and Dec 31, 2016 were collected. According to the tumor location, patients were divided into three groups: pancreatic neck tumor, pancreatic body and tail tumor with margin-to-bifurcation-distance (MTBD) ≤ 2.5 cm and pancreatic body and tail tumor with MTBD > 2.5 cm. The metastatic rate of the No. 9 LNs was compared among the 3 groups. The survival outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The involvement rate for No. 9 LNs was 20.7% (6/29) for pancreatic neck tumors, 17.6% (15/85) for body and tail tumors with MTBD ≤ 2.5 cm and 1.8% (1/55) for MTBD > 2.5 cm. The No. 9 LNs were significantly more frequently involved in neck or body and tail tumors with MTBD ≤2.5 cm than with the cases with MTBD >2.5 cm (OR 0.082, P = 0.016). No. 9 LN involvement was not associated with worse survival compared with survival associated with involvement of other LNs (P = 0.780).

CONCLUSIONS

For PDAC located in the neck or in the body and tail of the pancreas with MTBD ≤ 2.5 cm, the involvement rate for No. 9 LNs is high. Standard lymphadenectomy should include the No. 9 LNs.

Impact of Spleen Preserving Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy on Postoperative Infectious Complications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy is the standard procedure for body and tail pancreatic tumors. Technical difficulties arising from the strict anatomical relationship between pancreas and splenic vessels generally impose a concomitant splenectomy. Previous retrospective studies have shown a reduced risk of postoperative complications and infections in spleen preserved patients, but this is still a debated issue. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a more robust evidence on the effect of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted. Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I²-index and Cochran Q-test.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies were eligible, and 632 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, 296 (46.8%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (Group S), and 336 (53.2%) patients underwent spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Group SP). In-hospital mortality was 0%. In the group S, the estimated pooled odds ratio of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) and overall complications was 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.28; P = .048) and 2.30 (95% CI: 1.11-4.76; P = .024). The estimated pooled odds ratio of pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, and reoperation was 1.64 (P = .094), 1.01 (P = .987), and 1.24 (P = .776), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce postoperative SSI and overall complications. These results should be interpreted with caution but seem meaningful to establish a better evidence-based treatment for distal pancreatic tumors. Further studies are warranted to analyze the role of spleen preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on long-term outcomes.