Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)., Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC., Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival., Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929)., Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

In the original article, the institutional author the E-AHPBA DP-CAR study group was misspelled. It is correct as reflected here. The original article has also been corrected.

Approximately 30% of all pancreatic cancer patients have locally advanced (AJCC stage 3) disease. A sub-group of these patients-where the cancer only involves the celiac axis-may benefit from distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR). Previous studies have shown that DP-CAR offers a survival benefit to a selected group of patients with otherwise unresectable pancreatic cancer, when performed by experienced pancreatic cancer treatment teams at high-volume centers. This article proposes a standardized approach to DP-CAR, including routine neoadjuvant (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy. This approach to selecting patients and performing DP-CAR has the potential to improve short-term outcomes and overall survival in selected patients, but it should be reserved for high-volume centers.

Background: Determining the resectability of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) after induction chemotherapy is complex since CT-imaging cannot accurately portray tumor response. We hypothesized that CA19-9 response adds to RECIST-staging in predicting resectability of LAPC., Methods: Post-hoc analysis within a prospective study on LAPC (>90° arterial or >270° venous involvement). CA19-9 response was determined after induction chemotherapy. Surgical exploration was performed in RECIST-stable or -regressive disease. The relation between CA19-9 response, resectability and survival was assessed., Results: Restaging in 54 patients with LAPC after induction chemotherapy (mostly FOLFIRINOX) identified 6 RECIST-regressive, 32 RECIST-stable, and 16 patients with RECIST-progressive disease. The resection rate was 20.3% (11/54 patients). Sensitivity and specificity of RECIST-regression for resection were 40% and 87% whereas the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 67% and 68%. Using a 30% decrease of CA19-9 as cut-off, 9/10 patients were correctly classified as resectable (90% sensitivity, PPV 43%) and 3/15 as unresectable (20% specificity, NPV 75%). In the total cohort, a CA19-9 decrease ≥30% was associated with improved survival (22.4 vs. 12.7 months, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Adding CA19-9 response after induction chemotherapy seems useful in determining which patients with RECIST non-progressive LAPC should undergo exploratory surgery., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Western multicenter studies on distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR), also known as the Appleby procedure, for locally advanced pancreatic cancer are lacking. We aimed to study overall survival, morbidity, mortality and the impact of preoperative hepatic artery embolization (PHAE)., Methods: Retrospective cohort study within the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary-Association, on DP-CAR between 1-1-2000 and 6-1-2016. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were radicality (R0-resection), 90-day mortality, major morbidity, and pancreatic fistulae (grade B/C)., Results: We included 68 patients from 20 hospitals in 12 countries. Postoperatively, 53% of patients had R0-resection, 25% major morbidity, 21% an ISGPS grade B/C pancreatic fistula, and 16% mortality. In total, 82% received (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy and median overall survival in 62 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients was 18 months (CI 10-37). We observed no impact of PHAE on ischemic complications., Conclusions: DP-CAR combined with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with acceptable overall survival. The 90-day mortality is too high and should be reduced. Future studies should investigate to what extent increasing surgical volume or better patient selection can improve outcomes.

Objective: To assess current nationwide case selection factors for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and identify actual risk factors for adverse outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP)., Background: Patient selection criteria that predict outcomes after MIDP remain unknown. As a result, widespread adoption of this surgical technique may have been delayed and its potential benefits possibly under-exploited., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of elective ODP and MIDP performed at 106 centers in 2014, using the pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons' National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant treatment or pancreatitis as only diagnosis. Primary outcome includes a composite major morbidity metric, reflecting adverse events including mortality and reoperation. Multivariable modeling was used to detect current selection factors and to identify actual risk factors of composite major morbidity., Results: A total of 928 patients underwent ODP (n = 472) or MIDP (n = 456) using a laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach, 24% for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Current selection factors for MIDP were benign disease (odds ratio: OR: 1.56, CI: 1.10-2.21) and body mass index (BMI) 30-40 (OR: 1.41, CI: 1.04-1.91). Current selection factors for ODP were PDAC (OR: 0.45, CI: 0.31-0.64), benign tumor size >5 centimeters (OR: 0.40, CI: 0.23-0.67), and multivisceral procedures (OR: 0.39, CI: 0.26-0.59). Risk factors for composite major morbidity did not differ between ODP and MIDP. A trend was observed between MIDP and a lower risk of composite major morbidity compared with ODP (OR: 0.43, CI: 0.17-1.07)., Conclusions: Current selection factors for ODP or MIDP (benign disease, tumor size, and BMI) do not mitigate the risk of major morbidity. We found no evidence that MIDP should be avoided based on tumor etiology or size, BMI, or patient physical status.

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic lesions has slowly been gaining acceptance over the past decade and is being introduced in many centres. Some studies suggest that this approach is equivalent to or better than open surgery, but randomized data are needed to assess outcomes. In this Review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery by aggregating high-quality published evidence. Various aspects, including the benefits, limitations, oncological efficacy, learning curve and latest innovations, are discussed. The focus is on laparoscopic Whipple procedure and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for both benign and malignant disease, but robot-assisted surgery is also addressed. Surgical and oncological outcomes are discussed as well as quality of life parameters and the cost efficiency of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. We have also included decision-aid algorithms based on the literature and our own expertise; these algorithms can assist in the decision to perform a laparoscopic or open procedure.