RESUMO
Purpose: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a devastating complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PD (MIPD), including laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, have comparable POPF rates to open PD (OPD). However, we hypothesize that the likelihood of having a more severe POPF, as defined as clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), would be higher in an MIPD relative to OPD. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy dataset (2014-2020) was reviewed for any POPF after OPD. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared MIPD to OPD, and then RPD to LPD. Results: Among 3,083 patients who developed a POPF, 2,843 (92.2%) underwent OPD and 240 (7.8%) MIPD; of these, 25.0% were LPD (n = 60) and 75.0% RPD (n = 180). Grade B POPF was observed in 45.4% (n = 1,400), and grade C in 6.0% (n = 185). After PSM, MIPD patients had higher rates of CR-POPF (47.3% OPD vs. 54.4% MIPD, p = 0.037), as well as higher reoperation (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.006), delayed gastric emptying (29.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.041), and readmission rates (28.2% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.032). However, CR-POPF rates were comparable between LPD and RPD (56.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.408). Conclusion: The impact of POPF is more clinically pronounced after MIPD than OPD with a more complex postoperative course. The difference appears to be attributed to the minimally invasive environment itself as no difference was noted between LPD and RPD. A clear biological explanation of this clinical observation remains missing. Further studies are warranted.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Factors associated with refusal of multimodality therapy in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) remain unknown. We hypothesized that sociodemographic disparities affect decision to pursue optimal trimodally therapy for patients with EA. METHODS: NCDB for esophageal cancer (2004-2017) was utilized. Included were patients diagnosed with cT3-T4 cN0 or cTany N1-3 EA of the mid-lower esophagus. Annual institutional esophagectomy volumes were categorized as low (<20/year) and high (≥20/year). Conditional logistic regression was used to identify predictors of refusal of offered treatment. Kaplan Meier method was used to compare survival. RESULTS: 13 091 patients met selection criteria, mean age was 62.4 ± 9.6 years and 11 581 (88.5%) were males. 633 (4.8%) patients refused at least one component of recommended treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, and esophagectomy), most commonly refusal of surgery (N = 554, 4.2%). On multivariable analysis, factors predictive of treatment refusal included older age, female gender, black race, no insurance, low income (below poverty), mid-esophageal tumors, and treatment at low-volume centers. Patients who were recommended treatment but refused had significantly worse survival than those who adhered to treatment (median 23.1 ± 1.1 vs. 32.1 ± 1.2 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sociodemographic disparities and center volume were among factors predictive of therapy refusal in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. While understanding potential reasons for treatment refusal is critical, this data suggests that socioeconomic variables may drive patient decisions.
