Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: a Win Ratio Analysis

Comparing local excision with watch and wait for the management of rectal cancer patients responding to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Composite endpoint analysis using the win ratio

AIM

The aim of this work was to apply the 'win ratio' to compare the outcomes of rectal-sparing approaches [watch and wait (WW) and local excision (LE)] in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer responding to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHOD

Patients enrolled in the ReSARCh study (NCT02710812) between 2016 and 2021 were divided into two cohorts (WW vs. LE). The win ratio was calculated by dividing the number of successes (or wins) in the WW group by the number of successes in the LE group on matched pairs. Oncological outcomes (overall survival, distant and local recurrence), presence of a stoma and rectum not preserved were considered as outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Overall, 108 (62.1%) patients underwent LE and 66 (37.9%) WW. Patients who underwent WW were more likely to have a complete clinical response (cCR) at restaging [i.e. ycT = 0: n = 51 (80%) for WW vs. n = 45 (42%) for LE, p < 0.001]. After matching for age, sex, distance from the anal verge and T stage at restaging, i.e. ycT, 57 pairs of patients were identified. The overall win ratio considering only oncological outcomes was 0.4 (95% CI 0.02-0.94). The disadvantage of WW was mainly due to a higher rate of local recurrences. The overall win ratio considering oncological outcomes, presence of a stoma and rectum not preserved was 0.6 (95% CI 0.04-1.38), indicating a potential disadvantage for WW, but with wide confidence intervals suggesting uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

LE may have an advantage in terms of local recurrence rates compared with WW, potentially conferring a survival benefit. These results should be confirmed in further prospective randomized trials.

Open vs robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy, cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex gastrointestinal surgery that is performed increasingly via minimally invasive approach through robotic platforms. We sought to provide a comparative review of available data regarding robot-assisted vs open PD in terms of cost-effectiveness, overall survival, and other perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1980 to April 2024 using designated keywords. English-language studies comparing costs and oncologic outcomes of robotic vs open PDs were considered for inclusion. Reviews, abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and non-English articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1733 studies were initially identified throughout the literature search. After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening identified 16 studies that were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of short-term complications (95% CI, 0.805-1.096; P = .42), mortality (95% CI, 0.599-1.123; P = .21), and readmission (95% CI, 0.959-1.211; P = .20) among patients undergoing open vs robotic PD. Robotic PDs was associated with a slightly better overall survival (95% CI, 1.020-1.233) and higher costs (95% CI, 0.134-1.139; P = .013). Mean length of stay (LOS) was higher in the open PD group (95% CI, -0.353 to 0.189; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted PD had a slightly shorter LOS and improved overall survival. There were no differences in short-term complications, mortality, or readmission. The use of cohort studies and residual potential selection bias necessitate randomized controlled trials to define the benefit of robotic PD.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: Evaluation and Analysis of Surgical Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited for the treatment of pancreatic cancer among minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) from April 2016 to April 2023. Their baseline and perioperative data, including operative time, R0 resection rates, and severe complications rates, were analyzed, and the follow-up data, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 253 cases of LPD and RPD were performed, and 101 cases with pancreatic cancer were included, of which 54 were LPD and 47 were RPD. The conversion rate (4.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.001) and blood loss (400 vs. 575 mL, p < 0.05) were lower in the RPD group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, vessel resection rates, and TNM-stage diagnosis; however, R0 resection rates (80.9% vs. 70.4%) and lymph node harvest (24.2 vs. 21.9) had a higher tendency in the RPD group, and postoperative length of stay was shorter in the RPD cohort (11 vs. 13 days). Moreover, improved 1- to 3-years DFS (75.7%, 61.7%, and 36.0% vs. 59.0%, 35.6%, and 21.9%) and OS (94.7%, 84.7%, and 50.8% vs. 84.1%, 63.6%, and 45.5%) was found in the RPD group in comparison with the LPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD had advantages in surgical safety and oncological outcomes compared with LPD, but was similar to the latter in perioperative outcomes. Long-term outcomes require further study.

Artisential®-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy: a comparative analysis with Robot(Da Vinci®)-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (R-PD) helps further improve the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, it faces challenges such as high costs and limitations in availability at different centers, making it difficult for patients to access. In this study, we evaluate the initial experience of Artisential®-assisted PD (A-PD) and compare its perioperative outcomes with R-PD, discussing the clinical applicability of A-PD.

METHODS

This study reviewed cases of R-PD and A-PD conducted between 2022 and 2023. A total of 34 patients underwent R-PD, while 26 patients underwent A-PD. Statistical analysis was conducted based on factors related to the patient's surgical procedure and postoperative prognostic indicators.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of surgical factors. There were also no differences in the occurrence of postoperative complications. However, there was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with the Artisential® group having an average of 11.50 ± 5.54 days and the Robot group having 15.06 ± 5.34 days (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

R-PD and A-PD showed no differences in procedures or outcomes. Using a multi-articulated device is beneficial where robot use is challenging.

Effect of insurance status on perioperative outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis

The influence of Medicaid or being uninsured is prevailingly thought to negatively impact a patient's socioeconomic and postoperative course, yet little has been published to support this claim specifically in reference to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to determine impact of health insurance type on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 364 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified by insurance status (i.e., Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured); 100 patients were 2:2:1 propensity-score matched by age, BMI, ASA class, pathology, 8th edition AJCC staging, and tumor size. Perioperative variables were compared utilizing contingency testing and ANOVA. Statistical significance was accepted at a p-value ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The 100 patients undergoing propensity-score matching were 64 (65 ± 9.1) years old with a BMI of 27 (27 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). Operative duration was 421 (428 ± 105.9) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (385 ± 795.0) mL. There were 4 in-hospital deaths and 8 readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Total hospital cost was $32,064 (38,014 ± 22,205.94). After matching, no differences were found in pre-, intra-, and short-term postoperative variables among patients with different insurances, including hospital cost and time to initiate adjuvant treatment, which was 8 (9 ± 7.9) weeks for patients with malignant disease. In our hepatopancreaticobiliary program, health insurance status did not impact perioperative outcomes or hospital costs. These findings highlight that financial coverage does not influence quality of perioperative care, reinforcing the equity of robotic surgery.

Applying the win ratio method in clinical trials of orphan drugs: an analysis of data from the COMET trial of avalglucosidase alfa in patients with late-onset Pompe disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials for rare diseases often include multiple endpoints that capture the effects of treatment on different disease domains. In many rare diseases, the primary endpoint is not standardized across trials. The win ratio approach was designed to analyze multiple endpoints of interest in clinical trials and has mostly been applied in cardiovascular trials. Here, we applied the win ratio approach to data from COMET, a phase 3 trial in late-onset Pompe disease, to illustrate how this approach can be used to analyze multiple endpoints in the orphan drug context.

METHODS

All possible participant pairings from both arms of COMET were compared sequentially on changes at week 49 in upright forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Each participant's response for the two endpoints was first classified as a meaningful improvement, no meaningful change, or a meaningful decline using thresholds based on published minimal clinically important differences (FVC ± 4% predicted, 6MWT ± 39 m). Each comparison assessed whether the outcome with avalglucosidase alfa (AVA) was better than (win), worse than (loss), or equivalent to (tie) the outcome with alglucosidase alfa (ALG). If tied on FVC, 6MWT was compared. In this approach, the treatment effect is the ratio of wins to losses ("win ratio"), with ties excluded.

RESULTS

In the 2499 possible pairings (51 receiving AVA × 49 receiving ALG), the win ratio was 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-4.29, p = 0.005) when FVC was compared before 6MWT. When the order was reversed, the win ratio was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.13-3.62, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The win ratio approach can be used in clinical trials of rare diseases to provide meaningful insight on treatment benefits from multiple endpoints and across disease domains.