Laparoscopic radical distal pancreatectomy with portal venous tumor thrombectomy for the treatment of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10727812 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNeo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) represents one of the current research hotspots in the field of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of NAC in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) followed by pancreatectomy with portal vein (PV) resection and reconstruction with venous allograft (VAG).MethodsMedical records of patients with BPRC who underwent pancreatectomy with concomitant PV resection and reconstruction with VAG between April 2013 and March 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Outcomes of patients with and without NAC (NAC, Group 1 vs. non-NAC, Group 2) were compared with focus on R0 resection rates, morbidity, and survival.ResultsOf the 77 patients with pancreatectomy, PV resection and reconstruction with VAG were identified. Overall survival (OS) rates of 0.5-, 1-, and 2-year were 80.5%, 59.7%, and 31.2%, respectively (median survival time, MST, 14 months). Of these, 24 patients (Group 1) underwent operation following received NAC, and the remaining 53 patients did not (Group 2). The R0 resection rate of vascular margin was 100% vs. 84.9% (p = 0.04), respectively. Morbidity of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 0% vs. 17.8% (p = 0.07), respectively. The OS of 0.5-, 1- and 2-year and MST of 2 groups were 83.3%, 66.7%, 41.7%, 16 months, and 79.2%, 55.6%, 26.4%, 13 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) serum level and postoperative chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors in patients with BRPC after surgery.ConclusionNAC might improve the R0 resection rate and POPF in patients with BRPC who underwent pancreatectomy with concomitant PV resection and reconstruction with VAG. Survival benefit exists in patients with BRPC who received NAC before pancreatectomy. Postoperative chemotherapy also had a favorable effect on OS of BRPC patients. Elevated CA 19-9 serum level is associated with poor prognosis, even after NAC-combining operation.
| S-EPMC9787949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.MethodEMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsNine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.ConclusionsIn terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
| S-EPMC4925795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLearning curves of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are mostly based on 'self-taught' surgeons who acquired sufficient proficiency largely through self-teaching. No learning curves have been investigated for 'trained' surgeons who received training and built on the experience of the 'self-taught' surgeons. This study compared the learning curves and outcome of LDP between 'self-taught' and 'trained' surgeons in terms of feasibility and proficiency using short-term outcomes.Materials and methodsData of consecutive patients with benign or malignant disease of the left pancreas who underwent LDP by four 'self-taught' and four 'trained' surgeons between 1997 and 2019 were collected, starting from the first patient operated by a contributing surgeon. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analyses were performed to determine phase-1 feasibility (operative time) and phase-2 proficiency (major complications) learning curves. Outcomes were compared based on the inflection points of the learning curves.ResultsThe inflection points for the feasibility and proficiency learning curves were 24 and 36 procedures for 'trained' surgeons compared to 64 and 85 procedures for 'self-taught' surgeons, respectively. In 'trained' surgeons, operative time was reduced after completion of the learning curves (230.5-203 min, P= 0.028). In 'self-taught' surgeons, operative time (240-195 min, P ≤0.001), major complications (20.6-7.8%, P= 0.008), and length of hospital stay (9-5 days, P ≤0.001) reduced after completion of the learning curves.ConclusionThis retrospective international cohort study showed that the feasibility and proficiency learning curves for LDP of 'trained' surgeons were at least halved as compared to 'self-taught' surgeons.
| S-EPMC10389345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).MethodsA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.ConclusionRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
| S-EPMC4790929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLaparoscopic distal gastrectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are increasingly used to treat locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy or open distal gastrectomy.Design, setting, and participantsBetween April 23, 2015, and November 16, 2017, a phase 2, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, China. Patients (n = 96) between 18 and 80 years of age with locally advanced gastric cancer (cT2-4aN+M0) who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled and randomized. An as-treated population and a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population were defined for the data analysis.InterventionsPatients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy or open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymphadenectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Secondary end points were surgical radicality, 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, 2-week postoperative recovery indexes, and adjuvant chemotherapy completion status.ResultsIn total, 95 patients were eligible for as-treated analyses (LADG: 45, of whom 13 were female [29%], with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 50, of whom 16 were female [32%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years) and mITT analyses (LADG: 47, of whom 14 were female [30%], with a median [IQR] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 48, of whom 15 were female [31%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years). In the as-treated analyses, the LADG group had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate than the ODG group (20% vs 46%; P = .007). The postoperative visual analog scale score for pain was 1.2 units lower on postoperative day 2 only in the LADG group (95% CI, -2.1 to -0.3; P = .008). Patients in the LADG group had better adjuvant chemotherapy completion (adjusted odds ratio, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.63-11.80; P = .003) and were less likely to terminate adjuvant chemotherapy because of adverse effects (10 [22%] vs 21 [42%]; P = .04). The mITT analyses showed similar results to as-treated analyses.Conclusions and relevanceThis trial found that LADG appears to offer the benefits of better postoperative safety and adjuvant chemotherapy tolerance compared with ODG for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02404753.
| S-EPMC6763995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The laparoscopic approach in distal pancreatectomy is associated with higher rates of splenic preservation compared to open surgery. Although favorable postoperative short-term outcomes have been reported in open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy when compared to distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, it is unclear whether this observation applies to the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). STUDY DESIGN:This is a UK wide, propensity score-matched study, including patients who underwent LSPDP or LDPS between 2006 and 2016. Short-term outcomes were compared between LSPDP and LDPS according to intention to treat. Additionally, risk factors for unplanned splenectomy were explored. RESULTS:A total of 456 patients were included from eleven centers (229 LSPDP and 227 LDPS). We were able to match 173 LSPDP cases to 173 LDPS cases, according to intention to treat. No differences were seen in postoperative morbidity between the groups. The only identified risk factor for unplanned splenectomy was tumor size???30 mm. CONCLUSIONS:Preserving the spleen during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is not associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to sacrificing the spleen. Tumor size is a risk factor for unplanned splenectomy.
| S-EPMC7012970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) confer benefits over open distal pancreatectomies (ODP). These benefits extend to patients with known malignancies. Despite being a common procedure for pancreatic surgeons, widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches is still not universal. Improved understanding of the benefits of LDP as well as operative steps can help further spread the use of minimally invasive techniques.MethodsThe authors present their approach to LDP with an emphasis on anatomy, intraoperative technique, and pearls/pitfalls. A brief historical overview of the development of LDP and landmark studies is also included.ResultsReview of milestones along the evolution of LDP are presented, showcasing the controversies and advantages that are associated with the procedure. Current perspectives and society recommendations are also discussed. Operative steps of LDP are described via the "clockwise technique". This technique outlines a step-wise method that includes wide mobilization for adequate exposure, slow compression of pancreatic parenchyma, and other important pearls such as patient positioning and operative planning.ConclusionsProper understanding of LDP is crucial to maximizing positive outcomes from the operation. Further education on technical pearls can help increase use of minimally invasive approaches to distal pancreatic resection for cancer.
| S-EPMC11399819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods.MethodsData from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods.ResultsOverall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively.ConclusionTwo benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.
| S-EPMC10364499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.
| S-EPMC9834369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsStudies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.ResultsOverall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).ConclusionsRDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.
| S-EPMC10235152 | biostudies-literature