Is there a survival benefit of a robotic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kleive D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9944540 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Is there a survival benefit of a robotic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer?
Kleive Dyre D Yaqub Sheraz S Søreide Kjetil K
Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition 20230111 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeMargin-negative surgery is very important in surgical oncology. Considering margin-negative pancreatectomy is known to be essential for cure of the pancreatic cancer, pancreatoduodenectomy with combined venous vascular or arterial resection can be a potential option for margin-negative resection, especially, in era of neoadjuvant treatment with potent systemic chemotherapy. To the contrary, special attention was not paid on combined colonic resection during PD. In this article, safe surgical technique for PD with combined colonic resection is introduced, under the name of PD with "colon-last" approach.MethodsAt Severance Hospital (Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea), between 2014 and 2021, a total of six patients underwent PD with "colon-last" approach. The surgical technique and surgical outcome are reviewed.ResultsAll patients recovered without major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ III) after surgery, and most of them recovered after conservative treatment with postoperative pancreatic fistula biochemical leak. None of the patients were readmitted. Only the first and second cases represent cancer-related mortality, and the other patients are still alive and are being followed up.ConclusionIt is hoped that the present technique, PD with colon-last approach, could be helpful enhance the procedural safety in treating advanced cancer requiring PD with combined colon resection. However, its technical safety and oncologic role should be validated by many pancreatic surgeons' collaborative studies in the near future.
| S-EPMC11261178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMesopancreas dissection (MPD) level 3 in combined robotic/open pancreatoduodenectomy (CR/OPD) is technique-demanding. This study aims to clarify the feasibility and justification of MPD level 3.MethodsPropensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted for 208 patients with pancreatic head cancer undergoing CR/OPD with or without MPD level 3. The comparison focused on surgical and oncological outcomes.ResultsAfter PSM, each group comprised 86 patients. Surgical outcomes were comparable between these two groups, except longer operation time for MPD level 3 (+), median: 10.5 vs. 9.5 h, p = 0.002. MPD level 3 (+) group exhibited higher lymph node yield, median: 20 vs. 17, p < 0.001, and curative (R0) resection rate, 89.5% vs. 69.8%, p = 0.001, compared to MPD level 3 (-) group. Among the entire cohort, no significant survival difference was observed between the MPD Level 3 (+) and (-) groups. Survival outcome for R0 resection after CR/OPD was notably better than those for R2 resection, 5-year survival: 34.0% vs. 0, p = 0.038. However, within the curative (R0) resection cohort, no survival difference was observed between the MPD level 3 (+) and MPD level 3 (-) groups.ConclusionMPD level 3 in CR/OPD is technically feasible without increasing the surgical risks but takes one hour extra operating time. Incorporation of MPD level 3 does not confer a survival advantage within the curative (R0) resection cohort. The primary focus should continue to be on achieving curative (R0) resection to maximize the survival benefits for pancreatic head cancer.
| S-EPMC11794409 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10074441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTriangle pancreatoduodenectomy adds to the conventional procedure the en bloc removal of the retroperitoneal lympho-neural tissue included in the triangular area bounded by the common hepatic artery (CHA), the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein. We herein aim to show the feasibility of "cold" triangle robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (C-Tr-RPD) for pancreatic cancer (PDAC).MethodsCold dissection corresponds to sharp arterial divestment performed using only the tips of robotic scissors. After division of the gastroduodenal artery, triangle dissection begins by lateral-to-medial divestment of the CHA and anterior-to-posterior clearance of the right side of the celiac trunk. Next, after a wide Kocher maneuver, the origin of the SMA, and the celiac trunk are identified. After mobilization of the first jejunal loop and attached mesentery, the SMA is identified at the level of the first jejunal vein and is divested along the right margin working in a distal-to-proximal direction. Vein resection and reconstruction can be performed as required. C-Tr-RPD was considered feasible if triangle dissection was successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or need to use energy devices. Postoperative complications and pathology results are presented in detail.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven consecutive C-Tr-RPDs were successfully performed. There were three conversions to open surgery (2.3%), because of pneumoperitoneum intolerance (n = 2) and difficult digestive reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (26.7%) required associated vascular procedures. No pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery was observed. Twenty-eight patients (22.0%) developed severe postoperative complications (≥ grade III). Overall 90-day mortality was 7.1%, declining to 2.3% after completion of the learning curve. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 42 (33-51). The rate of R1 resection (7 margins < 1 mm) was 44.1%.ConclusionC-Tr-RPD is feasible, carries a risk of surgical complications commensurate to the magnitude of the procedure, and improves staging of PDAC.
| S-EPMC9652209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for ampullary adenocarcinoma is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association of AC with survival in patients with resected ampullary adenocarcinoma.MethodsUsing the National Cancer Database (NCDB) data from 2004 to 2016, patients with non-metastatic ampullary adenocarcinoma who underwent PD were identified. Patients with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy and survival < 6 months were excluded. Propensity score matching was used to account for treatment selection bias. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was then used to analyze the association of AC with survival.ResultsOf 3186 (43%) AC and 4172 (57%) no AC (noAC) patients, 1720 AC and 1720 noAC patients remained in the cohort after matching. Clinicopathologic variables were well balanced after matching. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median 47.5 vs 39.6 months, p = 0.003), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.83, CI95%: 0.76-0.91, p < 0.001). Multivariable interaction analyses showed that this benefit was seen irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.81, CI95%: 0.68-0.97, p < 0.001), N1 (HR: 0.65, CI95%: 0.61-0.70, p < 0.001), N2 (HR: 0.73, CI95%: 0.59-0.90, p = 0.003), N3 (HR: 0.59, CI95%: 0.44-0.78, p < 0.001); and margin status: R0 (HR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.77-0.94, p < 0.001), R1 (HR: 0.69, CI95%: 0.48-1.00, p < 0.001). Stratified analyses by nodal and margin status demonstrated consistent results.ConclusionIn this large retrospective cohort study, AC after resected ampullary adenocarcinoma was associated with a survival benefit in patients, including patients with node-negative and margin-negative disease.
| S-EPMC8275534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with involvement of the main pancreatic duct usually requires surgical resection. Consensus is lacking whether to partially or completely resect the pancreatic portion with a dilated main pancreatic duct. Intraoperative pancreatoscopy may be useful to determine the extent of IPMN to tailor surgical resection and was recently studied in a large prospective international study. IPMN is increasingly utilized using a robotic approach. Studies describing the technical approach to intraoperative pancreatoscopy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy are lacking.MethodsDuring robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed once the pancreas neck is transected. The scope is advanced via a laparoscopic port into the left and right-sided pancreatic duct, guided by robotic graspers. During robotic distal pancreatectomy, pancreatoscopy is performed before complete parenchymal transection. The scope is advanced through an anterior ductotomy to examine the duct and guide the pancreatic transection line. Tips and tricks how to perform the procedure efficiently without complications are detailed.ResultsIn total, 28 robot-assisted pancreatoscopies were performed during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy. No intraoperative complications resulting from the intraoperative pancreatoscopy were noted. In the 2 described procedures, the added time required to perform the pancreatoscopy was 6 and 17 minutes, respectively. Both patients recovered without complication and were discharged on postoperative day 5 for the robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and day 6 for the robotic distal pancreatectomy.ConclusionsIntraoperative pancreatoscopy can be safely performed during both robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy for IPMN with the involvement of the main pancreatic duct. An international prospective study has recently been completed with this technique.
| S-EPMC10431574 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11336533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands.MethodsThis was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias.ResultsOverall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032).ConclusionThis study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.
| S-EPMC10898866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of intraoperative margin revision to achieve margin clearance in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence of intraoperative margin revisions of the pancreatic neck and its impact on overall survival (OS). Nine studies with 4501 patients were included. Patient cohort was stratified in an R0R0-group (negative margin on frozen and permanent section), R1R0-group (revised positive margin on frozen section which turned negative on permanent section), and R1R1-group (positive margin on frozen and permanent section despite margin revision). OS was higher in the R1R0-group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96, P = 0.01) compared to the R1R1-group but lower compared to the R0R0-group (HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.37, P = 0.008), respectively. Subgroup analyses on the use of different margin clearance definitions confirmed an OS benefit in the R1R0-group compared to the R1R1-group (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.65-0.99, P = 0.04). In conclusion, intraoperative margin clearance of the pancreatic neck margin is associated with improved OS while residual tumor indicates aggressive tumor biology. Consensus definitions on margin terminologies, clearance, and surgical techniques are required.
| S-EPMC7746710 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11398999 | biostudies-literature