Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

Minimally Invasive Surgical Strategies for Alveolar Echinococcosis of the Liver

Background

Alveolar echinococcosis (AE) is a significant health concern worldwide, primarily affecting the liver. The standard treatment of surgical removal faces significant challenges due to the complex nature of AE. Despite advancements in pharmacological treatments, surgery complemented by at least 2 years of adjuvant medical treatment post-surgery remains the primary curative approach for AE.

Summary

The introduction of minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery, has expanded surgical options, offering reduced recovery times and minimized surgical trauma while maintaining efficacy and safety comparable to traditional open surgery. Robotic surgery, known for its enhanced precision and visualization, emerges as a preferable method for complex resections in AE treatment, despite challenges such as high costs and the need for specialized training.

Key Messages

The decision on the surgical approach is influenced by several factors, including parasite size, patient health, and technology availability. However, there is a clear preference for robotic procedures for their potential to offer better outcomes, though long-term data on outcomes and recurrence rates are needed. The treatment of AE, therefore, underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, advocating for its application in high-volume centers to optimize patient outcomes.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained widespread acceptance among hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons due to its demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional open approach. This meta-analysis, along with trial sequential analysis, aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current available evidence.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 2024. We assessed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including open conversion rates, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Additional factors, such as blood loss and the number of lymph nodes resected, were also evaluated. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tools. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching status, and trial sequential analysis was applied to statistically significant results on first analysis.

RESULTS

We meta-analyzed seventeen studies, with a total of 5,483 patients. The meta-analysis reported lower rates of open conversion (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.61; p = < 0.001) and a higher number of lymph nodes resected (MD 3.5; 95% CI 1.45-5.55; p = 0.0008) in the RPD group. These results remained consistent after subgroup analysis. Trial sequential analysis confirmed true positive results, indicating that further studies are unnecessary to detect a significant difference. However, other perioperative outcomes did not show statistical significance and failed to reach the required information size for definitive conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of non-randomized cohorts found lower rates of open conversion and a higher number of lymph nodes resected in patients undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. However, the initial analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in transfusion rates, multivisceral and vascular resections, hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, mortality, or readmission rates. Future studies should focus on randomized designs, target more specific populations, and include long-term outcomes for a more comprehensive analysis.

Surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in era of multidisciplinary strategies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a significant global health challenge, with over 800,000 new cases diagnosed annually. This comprehensive review examines current surgical approaches and emerging multidisciplinary strategies in HCC treatment. While traditional surgical criteria, such as the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, have been relatively conservative, recent evidence from high-volume Asian centers supports more aggressive surgical approaches in carefully selected patients. The review discusses the evolution of selection criteria, including the new "Borderline Resectable HCC" classification system, which provides more explicit guidance for surgical decision-making. Technical innovations have significantly enhanced surgical precision, including three-dimensional simulation, intraoperative navigation systems, and the advancement of minimally invasive approaches. The review evaluates the ongoing debate between anatomical versus non-anatomical resection and examines the emerging role of robotic surgery. In liver transplantation, expanded criteria beyond the Milan criteria show promising outcomes, while the integration of novel biomarkers and imaging techniques improves patient selection. The role of preoperative and adjuvant therapies is increasingly important, with recent trials demonstrating the potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with anti-VEGF agents in both settings. Despite these advances, postoperative recurrence remains a significant challenge. The review concludes that successful HCC treatment requires a personalized approach, integrating surgical expertise with emerging technologies and systemic therapies while considering individual patient factors and regional variations in practice patterns.

Oncological resection and perioperative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matched international multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) typically presents at an early stage due to biliary obstruction and therefore might be specifically suitable for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). However, studies assessing MIPD specifically for AAC, including the robotic and laparoscopic approach, are limited. The aim of this study is to compare short- and long-term oncological resection and perioperative outcomes of robotic (RPD), laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed specifically for AAC.

METHODS

In this multicenter international cohort study, encompassing 35 centers from 11 countries, MIPD versus OPD and subgroup analyses of LPD versus RPD were undertaken. The primary outcomes regarded the oncological resection (R1 resection rate, lymph node yield) and 5-years overall survival. Secondary outcomes were perioperative outcomes (including intra-operative variables, surgical complications and hospital stay).

RESULTS

In total, patients with AAC who underwent OPD (1721) or MIPD (141) were included. After propensity-score matching, 134 patients per cohort were included. The MIPD group consisted of 53 RPDs and 71 LPDs (50 per group after PSM). There was no difference in overall survival between MIPD and OPD (61.6 % vs 56.2 %, P = 0.215). In the MIPD group, operative time was longer (439 vs 360 min, P < 0.001). Between RPD and LPD, overall survival was not significantly different (75.8 % vs 47.4 %, P = 0.098) and lymph node yield was higher in RPD (21 vs 18, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, patients with AAC seem to have comparable oncological resection and perioperative outcomes from MIPD compared to the traditional OPD. Both RPD as LPD appear to be safe alternatives for patients with AAC, which warrants confirmation by future randomized studies.

Risk factors and outcomes of conversions in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions.

METHODS

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection.

Robotic liver parenchymal transection techniques: a comprehensive overview and classification

Robotic liver surgery is experiencing a period of great development, but some hurdles still need to be overcome. Parenchymal transection remains one of the most technically challenging steps. The lack of dedicated instruments and the flourishing of several techniques didn't allow surgeons to reach a standard technique so far. The aim of the present paper is to provide an overview of the different robotic liver transection techniques described to date, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each one. We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, inserting the following keywords: "robotic liver transection, robotic hepatic transection" and focusing particularly on technical reports and paper regarding new surgical methods. This search resulted in a total of 13 different surgical techniques. All the methods described can be classified into two categories the "hybrid techniques" and the "fully robotic techniques" which are based, respectively, on the combined use of laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation or exclusively robotic devices. Another fundamental difference is the division between "one-surgeon" and "two-surgeon techniques", which depends on the level of expertise required of the assistant surgeon at the operating table. This is the first comprehensive review on this topic. Although the existing literature does not allow one technique to be established as superior to the others, the adoption of a standardized method of robotic hepatic transection is highly desirable to optimize surgical results and to allow better comparability of outcomes within the scientific community.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumors: a meta-analysis

Objective

The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) compared with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors is controversial. This study aims to assess the available literature and compare the short outcomes of RPD and LPD.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to 24 July, 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 9417 patients (RPD group: 3334 patients; LPD group: 6083 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The RPD group had lower overall morbidity (RR, 0.79), conversion (RR, 0.29) and blood transfusion rates (RR, 0.61), shorter length of stay (MD, -0.72 days), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.62) than the LPD group. There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (RR, 0.89), major complications (RR, 0.87), operative time (MD, -3.74 mins), blood loss (MD, -24.14 mL), reoperation (RR, 0.94), bile leak (RR, 0.62), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (RR, 0.96), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR, 0.74), delayed gastric emptying (RR, 1.24), and R0 resection (RR, 1.00) between the groups.

Conclusions

Compared with LPD, RPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of RPD over LPD are necessary.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=581133, identifier CRD42024581133.

The optimal choice for patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in improving perioperative aspects and postoperative complications in patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database systems for studies that compared RPD with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Meta-analysis was performed for 24 relevant outcomes, including perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications. Subsequently, a subgroup analysis based on geographical regions was conducted to investigate the impact of regional differences on the perioperative outcomes of the RPD group and the LPD group.

RESULTS

This review found 19 studies with 12,731 individuals (3539 RPD and 9192 LPD). In comparison to LPD, RPD had lower rates of Conversion (OR = 0.58, P < 0.00001), Blood Transfusion (OR = 0.59, P = 0.02), Length of Stay (MD = - 0.54, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [Pneumonia (OR = 0.31, P < 0.0001), and Wound Disruption (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0007)], and more thorough lymph node harvesting (MD = 1.25, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that Blood Transfusion (I2 = 55%, P = 0.02), Conversion (I2 = 30%, P < 0.00001), Length of Stay (I2 = 71%, P = 0.01), and Lymph Node Harvested (I2 = 87%, P = 0.001) were statistically significant. Interestingly, compared to China, other countries had lower rates of Conversion and more lymph nodes harvested for RPD surgery.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of RPD surgery over LPD surgery in terms of therapy and an optimistic short-term prognosis are clearly supported by this study. Moreover, subgroup analysis based on regional differences revealed statistically significant results for Conversion, Length of Stay (days), Number of Lymph Nodes Harvested and the rate of Blood Transfusion, indicating significant variability across regions. This study provides a solid theoretical foundation and basis for the advancement of RPD in clinical practice.

Robotic hepaticojejunostomy training in novices using robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing (ROSIM): randomized controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic suturing training is in increasing demand and can be done using suture-pads or robotic simulation training. Robotic simulation is less cumbersome, whereas a robotic suture-pad approach could be more effective but is more costly. A training curriculum with crossover between both approaches may be a practical solution. However, studies assessing the impact of starting with robotic simulation or suture-pads in robotic suturing training are lacking.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled crossover trial conducted with 20 robotic novices from 3 countries who underwent robotic suturing training using an Intuitive Surgical® X and Xi system with the SimNow (robotic simulation) and suture-pads (dry-lab). Participants were randomized to start with robotic simulation (intervention group, n = 10) or suture-pads (control group, n = 10). After the first and second training, all participants completed a robotic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) in biotissue. Primary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) score during HJ, scored by two blinded raters. Secondary endpoints were force measurements and a qualitative analysis. After training, participants were surveyed regarding their preferences.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 robotic novices completed both training sessions and performed 40 robotic HJs. After both trainings, OSATS was scored higher in the robotic simulation-first group (3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.5 ± 0.8; p = 0.049), whereas the median maximum force (N) (5.0 [3.2-8.0] vs 3.8 [2.3-12.8]; p = 0.739) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the survey, 17/20 (85%) participants recommended to include robotic simulation training, 14/20 (70%) participants preferred to start with robotic simulation, and 20/20 (100%) to include suture-pad training.

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance during robotic HJ in robotic novices was significantly better after robotic simulation-first training followed by suture-pad training. A robotic suturing curriculum including both robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing should ideally start with robotic simulation.

Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: ensuring safety with implementation

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs.

METHODS

Sixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used.

RESULTS

Twenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry

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.

Microfracture-coagulation for the real robotic liver parenchymal transection

The use of the robotic approach in liver surgery is exponentially increasing. Although technically the robot introduces several innovative features, the instruments linked with the traditional laparoscopic approach for the liver parenchymal transection are not available, which may result in multiple technical variants that may bias the comparative analysis between the different series worldwide. A real robotic approach, minimally efficient for the liver parenchymal transection, with no requirement of external tool, available for the already existing platforms, and applicable to any type of liver resection, counting on the selective use of the plugged bipolar forceps and the monopolar scissors, or "microfracture-coagulation" (MFC) transection method, is described in detail. The relevant aspects of the technique, its indications and methodological basis are discussed.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal malignancy with a minority of patients eligible for curative-intent surgical intervention. Pancreatic resections are technically demanding operations associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs), which include laparoscopic and robotic approaches, may enhance postoperative outcomes by lessening physiological impact of open surgery. A limited number of randomized-controlled trials as well as numerous retrospective reports have focused on MIPR outcomes and role in management of a variety of tumors, including PDAC. Today, MIPRs are generally considered acceptable alternatives to open surgery as a trend towards improved short-term metrics is observed. However, several questions remain regarding the oncological adequacy of MIPR's as long-term experience is less extensive compared to open techniques. This review aims to summarize existing evidence on MIPRs with a focus on PDAC.

Safe implementation of a minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary program, a narrative review and institutional experience

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches to hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations have expanded worldwide. As surgeons and medical centers contemplate initiating and expanding minimally invasive surgical (MIS) programs for complex HPB surgical operations, there are many factors to consider. This review highlights the key components of developing an MIS HPB program and shares our recent institutional experience with the adoption and expansion of an MIS approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Circumstances and implications of conversion from minimally invasive to open liver resection: a multi-center analysis from the AMILES registry

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p < 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p < 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p = 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

The importance of robotic surgery training in HPB fellowship: a survey of the 2022 AHPBA fellows

BACKGROUND

The 2022 incoming fellows' expectations for their robotics training, as well as their perceptions of the utility of the surgical robot, are not well defined.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of 24 AHPBA fellows in 2022, analyzed with descriptive statistics and Spearman's rho.

RESULTS

Of 33 current AHPBA fellows, 22 completed the survey (66.7%). Study participants had limited-to-moderate experience with robotics prior to fellowship (mean 2.5 ± SD 1.1; range 1-4). Most participants agreed that robotics influenced their fellowship choice (mean 4.14 ± SD 0.87; range 1-5), would make then more marketable (mean 4.77 ± SD 0.52; range 1-5) and improve job prospects (mean 4.68 ± SD 0.87; range 1-5). Of the study participants, 55% responded that robotics training is "essential" in fellowship, while 64% responded that it is "essential" for their careers. Fellows were only slightly satisfied with overall robotics training within their respective programs (mean 3.44 ± SD 1.17; range 1-5) The majority (73.7%) expect that robotics will comprise <25% of their training. Notably, the majority (75%) have no formal robotics training curriculum.

DISCUSSION

This survey identifies potential gaps where robotics training could be improved for future incoming AHPBA fellows.

Pretreatment Nutritional Status in Combination with Inflammation Affects Chemotherapy Interruption in Women with Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Peritoneal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Discontinuing chemotherapy worsens cancer prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between nutritional status at the start of chemotherapy and chemotherapy discontinuation in patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. One hundred and forty-six patients to whom weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin were administered as postoperative chemotherapy were included. Six courses in 21-day cycles were defined as complete treatment. As nutritional indicators, body mass index, weight change rate, serum albumin, total lymphocyte count, prognostic nutritional index, and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) were compared between complete and incomplete treatment groups. Patients were divided into two groups according to CAR. The number of chemotherapy cycles was compared between these two groups. A Cox proportional hazard model was used for covariate adjustment.

RESULTS

Several indicators differed between complete and incomplete treatment groups, and among the indicators, CAR had the highest discriminatory ability. The number of chemotherapy cycles was shorter in the high CAR group than in the low CAR group. A high CAR was associated with chemotherapy interruption even after adjusting for covariates.

CONCLUSION

Based on CAR, nutritional status before chemotherapy is suggested to be associated with the risk of chemotherapy discontinuation.