RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit. RESULTS: Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy have been confirmed by randomized trials, but current patient selection and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in large international cohorts is unknown. This study aimed to compare the use and outcome of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in North America, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. METHODS: All patients in the 4 Global Audits on Pancreatic Surgery Group (GAPASURG) registries who underwent minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy during 2014-2020 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 20,158 distal pancreatectomies were included, of which 7,316 (36%) were minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies. Use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy varied from 29% to 54% among registries, of which 13% to 35% were performed robotically. Both the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and robotic surgery were the highest in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy tended to have a younger age (Germany and Sweden), female sex (North America, Germany), higher body mass index (North America, the Netherlands, Germany), lower comorbidity classification (North America, Germany, Sweden), lower performance status (Germany), and lower rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (all). The minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy group had fewer vascular resections (all) and lower rates of severe complications and mortality (North America, Germany). In the multivariable regression analysis, country was associated with severe complications but not with 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality compared with open distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio 1.633, 95% CI 1.159-2.300, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disparities were seen in the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy among 4 transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery. Overall, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was associated with decreased mortality as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Differences in patient selection among countries could imply that countries are in different stages of the learning curve.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are premalignant cystic neoplasms of the pancreas (CNPs), which can progress to invasive IPMN and pancreatic cancer. The available literature has shown controversial results regarding prognosis and clinical outcomes after the resection of invasive IPMN. AIMS: This study aims to characterize the oncologic outcomes and metastatic progression pattern after the resection of non-metastatic invasive IPMN. METHODS: Data were obtained from 24 clinical cancer registries participating in the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (ADT). Patients with invasive IPMN (n = 217) as well as PDAC (n = 5794) between 2000 and 2021 were included and compared regarding oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Invasive IPMN was significantly smaller in size (p < 0.001) and of a lower tumor grade (p < 0.001), with fewer lymph node metastases (p < 0.001), lymphangiosis (p < 0.001), and consequently a higher R0 resection rate (88 vs. 74%) compared to PDAC. Moreover, invasive IPMN was associated with fewer local (11 vs. 15%) and distant recurrences (29 vs. 46%) and metastasized more frequently in the lungs only (26% vs. 14%). Invasive IPMN was associated with a longer median OS (29 vs. 19 months) and DFS (31 vs. 15 months) compared to PDAC and stayed independently prognostic in multivariable analyses. These survival differences were most pronounced in early tumor stages. Interestingly, postoperative chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in surgically resected invasive IPMN. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive IPMN is a rare pancreatic entity with increasing incidence in Germany. It is associated with favorable histopathological features at the time of resection and longer OS and DFS compared to PDAC, particularly before the locoregional spread has occurred. Invasive IPMNs are associated with lung-only metastasis. The benefit of postoperative chemotherapy after the resection of invasive IPMN remains uncertain.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The method of transecting the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatic resection may influence the rate of complications, including pancreatic fistula and bleeding. The objective of this study was to compare the transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatoduodenectomy with monopolar electrocautery versus scalpel in terms of postoperative complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with open pancreatoduodenectomy from the German DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry (January 2013 to December 2021) was performed. Transection of the pancreatic parenchyma with a scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery was compared regarding postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, and major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3) rates. Multivariable analysis with adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center cluster effect was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 6,752 patients were included in the study. In 4,072 (60.3%), transection was performed with a scalpel and, in 2,680 (39.7%), with electrocautery. Transection with electrocautery was associated with higher postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (15.4% vs 12.8%; P = .003), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (11% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and major complications (33.4% vs 29.6%; P = .001) rates. In the multivariable analysis, after adjustment for potential confounders and surgical center, the association of the transection method with postoperative pancreatic fistula B/C (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.2; P = .962), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C (odds ratio = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.94-1.6; P = .127), and major complications (odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .297) was not significant. CONCLUSION: The study found no significant association between transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during open pancreatoduodenectomy with a scalpel compared with monopolar electrocautery regarding pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, or overall major complication rates.
Asunto(s)
Electrocoagulación , Páncreas , Fístula Pancreática , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Sistema de Registros , Humanos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Femenino , Electrocoagulación/efectos adversos , Electrocoagulación/instrumentación , Electrocoagulación/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Fístula Pancreática/etiología , Fístula Pancreática/epidemiología , Páncreas/cirugía , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/etiología , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/epidemiología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Puntaje de Propensión , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Humanos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/métodos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Masculino , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Anciano , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Pancreatectomía , Sistema de Registros , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Humanos , Pancreatectomía/métodos , Pancreatectomía/mortalidad , Pancreatectomía/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/mortalidad , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/estadística & datos numéricos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Europa (Continente) , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , AdultoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic surgery may have a long-lasting effect on patients' health status and quality of life (QoL). We aim to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) 3 months after pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for pancreatic surgery were enrolled in a prospective trial at five German centers. Patients completed PRO questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-PAN26, patient-reported happiness, and HADS-D), we report the first follow-up 3 months after surgery as an interim analysis. Statistical testing was performed using R software. RESULTS: From 2019 to 2022 203 patients were enrolled, a three-month follow-up questionnaire was available in 135 (65.5 %). 77 (57.9 %) underwent surgery for malignant disease. Patient-reported health status (EQ-5D-5L) was impaired in 4/5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, discomfort) for patients with malignant and 3/5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities) for patients with benign disease 3 months after surgery (p < 0.05). Patients with malignant disease reported an increase in depressive symptoms, patients with benign disease had a decrease in anxiety symptoms (HADS-D; depression: 5.00 vs 6.51, p = 0.002; anxiety: 8.04 vs. 6.34, p = 0.030). Regarding pancreatic-disease-specific symptoms (EORTC-QLQ-PAN26), patients with malignant disease reported increased problems with taste, weight loss, weakness in arms and legs, dry mouth, body image and troubling side effects at three months. Patients with benign disease indicated more weakness in arms and legs, troubling side effects but less future worries at three months. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery for benign vs. malignant disease show important differences. Patients with malignant tumors report more severely decreased quality of life 3 months postoperatively than patients with benign tumors.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo , Neoplasias , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de Vida , Medición de Resultados Informados por el PacienteRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinomas are rare malignant neoplasms. High-quality evidence about the best treatment strategy is lacking. We present the case of a 52-year-old male with a BRAFV600E -mutated PACC who experienced a complete remission after chemotherapy with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors. CASE: The patient presented with upper abdomen pain, night sweat, and weight loss. CT scan showed a pancreatic tumor extending from the pancreas head to body. Histological workup identified an acinar cell carcinoma. As the tumor was inoperable, chemotherapy with FOFIRNIOX was initiated and initially showed a slight regression of disease. The regimen had to be discontinued due to severe side effects. Molecular analysis identified a BRAFV600E mutation, so the patient was started on BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors (dabrafenib/trametinib). After 16 months, CT scans showed a near complete remission with a markedly improved overall health. DISCUSSION: Studies suggest that up to one-fourth of PACCs carry a BRAF mutation and might therefore be susceptible to a BRAF-/MEK-inhibitor therapy. This offers a new therapeutic pathway to treat this rare but malignant neoplasm.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Acinares , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma de Células Acinares/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Acinares/genética , Carcinoma de Células Acinares/inducido químicamente , Quinasas de Proteína Quinasa Activadas por Mitógenos/antagonistas & inhibidores , Mutación , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/genética , Inhibidores de Proteínas Quinasas/uso terapéutico , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas B-raf/antagonistas & inhibidores , Piridonas/farmacología , Pirimidinonas/farmacologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The introduction of modern chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A recent North American study demonstrated increased use of NAT and improved operative outcomes in patients with PDAC. The aims of this study were to compare the use of NAT and short-term outcomes in patients with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) among registries from the US and Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. STUDY DESIGN: Databases from 2 multicenter (voluntary) and 2 nationwide (mandatory) registries were queried from 2018 to 2020. Patients undergoing PD for PDAC were compared based on the use of upfront surgery vs NAT. Adoption of NAT was measured in each country over time. Thirty-day outcomes, including the composite measure (ideal outcomes), were compared by multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses of patients undergoing vascular resection were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 11,402 patients underwent PD for PDAC with 33.7% of patients receiving NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 28.3% in 2018 to 38.5% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). However, use of NAT varied widely by country: the US (46.8%), the Netherlands (44.9%), Sweden (11.0%), and Germany (7.8%). On multivariable analysis, NAT was significantly (p < 0.01) associated with reduced rates of serious morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistulae, reoperations, and increased ideal outcomes. These associations remained on sensitivity analysis of patients undergoing vascular resection. CONCLUSIONS: NAT before PD for pancreatic cancer varied widely among 4 Western audits yet increased by 26% during 3 years. NAT was associated with improved short-term outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/tratamiento farmacológico , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Pancreatectomía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoAsunto(s)
Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Pancreatoyeyunostomía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/métodos , Humanos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Pancreatoyeyunostomía/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Fístula Pancreática/prevención & control , Fístula Pancreática/etiología , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Técnicas de SuturaRESUMEN
There is a lack of training curricula and educational concepts for robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). It remains unclear how surgical residents can be trained in this new technology and how robotics can be integrated into surgical residency training. The conception of a training curriculum for RAS addressing surgical residents resulted in a three-step training curriculum including multimodal learning contents: basics and simulation training of RAS (step 1), laboratory training on the institutional robotic system (step 2) and structured on-patient training in the operating room (step 3). For all three steps, learning content and video tutorials are provided via cloud-based access to allow self-contained training of the trainees. A prospective multicentric validation study was conducted including seven surgical residents. Transferability of acquired skills to a RAS procedure were analyzed using the GEARS score. All participants successfully completed RoSTraC within 1 year. Transferability of acquired RAS skills could be demonstrated using a RAS gastroenterostomy on a synthetic biological organ model. GEARS scores concerning this procedure improved significantly after completion of RoSTraC (17.1 (±5.8) vs. 23.1 (±4.9), p < 0.001). In step 3 of RoSTraC, all participants performed a median of 12 (range 5-21) RAS procedures on the console in the operation room. RoSTraC provides a highly standardized and comprehensive training curriculum for RAS for surgical residents. We could demonstrate that participating surgical residents acquired fundamental and advanced RAS skills. Finally, we could confirm that all surgical residents were successfully and safely embedded into the local RAS team.
Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Robótica , Entrenamiento Simulado , Humanos , Competencia Clínica , Curriculum , Estudios Prospectivos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Robótica/educación , Entrenamiento Simulado/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient selection for lymphadenectomy remains a controversial aspect in the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), given the growing importance of parenchyma-sparing resections and minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: This population-based analysis was derived from the German Cancer Registry Group during the period from 2000 to 2021. Patients with upfront resected non-functional non-metastatic pNETs were included. RESULTS: Out of 5520 patients with pNET, 1006 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three percent of the patients were male. The median age was 64 ± 17 years. G1, G2, and G3 pNETs were found in 57%, 37%, and 7% of the patients, respectively. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) was present in 253 (24%) of all patients. LNM was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.79, CI 95% 1.21-2.64, p = 0.001) for disease-free survival (DFS). The 3-, 5-, and 10-year disease-free survival in nodal negative tumors compared to nodal positive was 82% vs. 53%, 75% vs. 38%, and 48% vs. 16%. LNM was present in 5% of T1 tumors, 25% of T2 tumors, and 49% of T3-T4 tumors. In T1 tumors, G1 was the most predominant tumor grade (80%). However, in T2 tumors, G2 and G3 represented 44% and 5% of all tumors. LNM was associated with tumors located in the pancreatic head (p < 0.001), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), tumors larger than 2 cm (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that tumor size, tumor grade, and location were independent prognostic factors associated with LNM that could potentially be used to predict LNM preoperatively. CONCLUSION: LNM is an independent negative prognostic factor for DFS in pNETs. Due to the low incidence of LNM in T1 tumors (5%), parenchyma-sparing surgery seems oncologically adequate in small G1 pNETs, while regional lymphadenectomy should be recommended in T2 or G2/G3 pNETs.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Sistema de Registros , Humanos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/métodos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/mortalidad , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/mortalidad , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/mortalidad , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/estadística & datos numéricos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Resultado del Tratamiento , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: In patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), chemotherapy is the treatment of choice. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are still being debated. This randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter phase III trial (EudraCT 2006-006088-22; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02158988) explored the impact on overall survival (OS) of HIPEC after CRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with GC and histologically proven PM were randomly assigned (1:1) to perioperative chemotherapy and CRS alone (CRS-A) or CRS plus HIPEC (CRS + H). HIPEC comprised mitomycin C 15 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 in 5 L of saline perfused for 60 minutes at 42°C. The primary end point was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), other distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), and safety. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and June 2018, 105 patients were randomly assigned (53 patients to CRS-A and 52 patients to CRS + H). The trial stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. In 55 patients, treatment stopped before CRS mainly due to disease progression/death. Median OS was the same for both groups (CRS + H, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 8.7 to 17.7] months v CRS-A, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 7.0 to 19.4] months; P = .1647). The PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 7.0) in the CRS-A group and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.5; P = .047) in the CRS + H group. The CRS + H group showed better MFS (10.2 months [95% CI, 7.7 to 14.7] v CRS-A, 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.8 to 11.5]; P = .0286). The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups (CRS-A, 38.1% v CRS + H, 43.6%; P = .79). CONCLUSION: This study showed no OS difference between CRS + H and CRS-A. PFS and MFS were significantly better in the CRS + H group, which needs further exploration. HIPEC did not increase AEs.
Asunto(s)
Hipertermia Inducida , Neoplasias Peritoneales , Neoplasias Gástricas , Adulto , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Neoplasias Peritoneales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Peritoneales/secundario , Quimioterapia Intraperitoneal Hipertérmica , Terapia Combinada , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Tasa de Supervivencia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey. RESULTS: Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Robótica , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Estudios de Seguimiento , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Pancreatectomía/efectos adversos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Using national registries, we aimed to evaluate oncologic textbook outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients. METHODS: Patients with stage I to III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and surgical resection from 2010 to 2020 in the US and Germany were identified using the National Cancer Database and National Cancer Registries data. The surgical-oncologic textbook outcome was defined as complete oncologic resection with no residual tumor and ≥12 harvested lymph nodes. The composite endpoint was defined as surgical-oncologic textbook outcome and receipt of perioperative systemic and/or radiation therapy. RESULTS: In total, 33,498 patients from the National Cancer Database and 14,589 patients from the National Cancer Registries were included. In the National Cancer Database, 28,931 (86%) patients had complete oncologic resection with no residual tumor, and 11,595 (79%) in the National Cancer Registries. 8,723 (26%) patients in the National Cancer Database and 556 (4%) in the National Cancer Registries had <12 lymph nodes harvested. The National Cancer Database shows 26,135 (78%) underwent perioperative therapy and 8,333 (57%) in the National Cancer Registries. Surgical-oncologic textbook outcome was achieved in 21,198 (63%) patients in the National Cancer Database and in 11,234 (77%) patients from the National Cancer Registries. 16,967 (50%) patients in the National Cancer Database and 7,878 (54%) patients in the National Cancer Registries had composite textbook outcome. Median overall survival in patients with composite textbook outcomes was 32 months in the National Cancer Database and 27 months in the National Cancer Registries (P < .001). In contrast, those with non-textbook outcomes had a median overall survival of 23 months in the National Cancer Database and 20 months in the National Cancer Registries (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Surgical-oncologic textbook outcomes were achieved in > 50% of stage I to III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma for both the National Cancer Database and the National Cancer Registries. Failure to achieve textbook outcomes was associated with impaired survival across both registries.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Sistema de Registros , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. METHODS: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. RESULTS: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.