Outcomes of the patients who were postoperatively diagnosed as malignancy after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:467-470. [PMID: 23047395 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182632833]

Malignant Tumors Misdiagnosed as Liver Hemangiomas

Background and Aim: To derive lessons from the data of patients who were followed for various periods with the misdiagnosis of liver hemangioma and eventually found to have a malignancy.

Material and Methods: The records of 23 patients treated between 2003 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively.

Results: Twelve patients were men and 11 were women; median (range) age was 55 (35–80). The principal diagnostic modality for the initial diagnosis was ultrasonography (n:8), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n:13), and computed tomography (CT) (n:2). At our institution, MRI was performed in 16 patients; the diagnosis was made with the available MRI and CT studies in five and two patients, respectively. In other words, the ultrasonography interpretations were not confirmed on MRI; in others, the MRI or CT examinations were of low quality or they had not been interpreted properly. Fifteen patients underwent surgery; the other patients received chemotherapy (n:6) or chemoembolization (n:2). The misdiagnosis caused a median (range) 10 (0–96) months delay in treatment. The final diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in 12 patients, cholangiocarcinoma in four patients, metastatic mesenchymal tumor, metastasis of colon cancer, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, angiosarcoma, thoracic wall tumor, and metastatic tumor of unknown primary in one patient each.

Conclusions: High-quality MRI with proper interpretation and judicious follow up are vital for the accurate differential diagnosis of liver lesions.

Pancreatic cancer: Open or minimally invasive surgery?

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma is one of the most fatal malignancies, with R0 resection remaining the most important part of treatment of this malignancy. However, pancreatectomy is believed to be one of the most challenging procedures and R0 resection remains the only chance for patients with pancreatic cancer to have a good prognosis. Some surgeons have tried minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but the short- and long-term outcomes of pancreatic malignancy remain controversial between open and minimally invasive procedures. We collected comparative data about minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery. The available evidence suggests that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is as safe and feasible as open PD (OPD), and shows some benefit, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Despite the limited evidence for MIPD in pancreatic cancer, most of the available data show that the short-term oncological adequacy is similar between MIPD and OPD. Some surgical techniques, including superior mesenteric artery-first approach and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with major vein resection, are believed to improve the rate of R0 resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is less technically demanding and is accepted in more pancreatic centers. It is technically safe and feasible and has similar short-term oncological prognosis compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Several key issues in surgical treatment of distal pancreatic cancer

Distal pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with insidious and subtle presentation, low radical resection rate and poor prognosis. The effectiveness of treatments for this disease remains to be improved. Radical resection is the only curable treatment. Personalized therapeutic strategy with surgical resection as a core should be the standard mode for these patients, and a professional multidisciplinary team is indispensable. Patients with borderline resectable cancers may benefit from a neoadjuvant approach by initiating chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation prior to the resection. Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) is designed to establish an operation with oncologic rationales and should be the standard radical resection mode for distal pancreatic cancer. The use of diagnostic laparoscopy can help find hepatic metastases and peritoneal dissemination to avoid an unnecessary open operation. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has many advantages compared with open operation, but is only applicable to early-stage patients with small tumors. In addition, the long-term oncologic effects of this surgical procedure still need to be verified, and it should be carried out selectively. Radical distal (or left) pancreatectomy with resection of the celiac axis (DP-CAR) is proper for some patients with evidence of celiac arterial invasion and should be conducted meticulously. However, new breakthroughs in early diagnosis and genetically personalized therapy are urgently needed. We still need prospective, randomized studies in multicenter institutions to provide more evidence for the neoadjuvant approach and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open distal splenopancreatectomy for the treatment of pancreatic body and tail cancer: a retrospective, mid-term follow-up study at a single academic tertiary care institution

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic distal splenopancreatectomy (DSP) is an effective and safe surgical modality for treating benign and borderline distal pancreatic tumors, but rarely for pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic versus laparotomic DSP in pancreatic body-tail cancer (PBTC) patients.

METHODS

Thirty-four PBTC patients were consecutively and retrospectively hospitalized for elective laparoscopic DSP (n = 11) or laparotomy (n = 23) between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was mean overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

All patients underwent DSP via laparoscopy or laparotomy as scheduled and were followed-up for 12-72 months. The two groups showed statistically similar mean operative time (laparoscopy vs. laparotomy, 150 ± 54 vs. 160 ± 48 min), median volume of intraoperative bleeding (100 [50-400] vs. 150 [50-350] ml), and rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (18.2 vs. 21.7 %). The laparoscopy group had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization (5 [3-12] vs. 8 [7-22] d, P < 0.05). All patients had a clear resection margin and showed statistically similar tumor size (2.8 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7 cm), number of lymph nodes dissected (14.8 ± 4.5 vs. 16.1 ± 5.7), and mean OS (42.0 ± 8.6 vs. 54.0 ± 5.8 mo, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DSP is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative to laparotomy in carefully selected PBTC patients and is associated with a more rapid postoperative recovery.

Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy has been regarded as a safe and effective treatment for benign and borderline malignant pancreatic lesions. However, its application for left-sided pancreatic cancer is still being debated. The clinical evidence for radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS)-based minimally invasive approaches for left-sided pancreatic cancer was reviewed. Potential indications and surgical concepts for minimally invasive RAMPS were suggested. Despite the limited clinical evidence for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic cancer, the currently available clinical evidence supports the use of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy under oncologic principles in well-selected left sided pancreatic cancers. A pancreas-confined tumor with an intact fascia layer between the pancreas and left adrenal gland/kidney positioned more than 1 or 2 cm away from the celiac axis is thought to constitute a good condition for the use of margin-negative minimally invasive RAMPS. The use of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) anterior RAMPS is feasible and safe for margin-negative resection in well-selected left-sided pancreatic cancer. The oncologic feasibility of the procedure remains to be determined; however, the currently available interim results indicate that even oncologic outcomes will not be inferior to those of open radical distal pancreatosplenectomy.