Morbidity among long-term survivors after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy vs. end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy in pancreatoduodenectomy: A single-center retrospective study

Background and Objective

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most common critical complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and is the primary reason for increased mortality and morbidity after PD. We aim to investigate the clinical significance of a novel approach, i.e., end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy, for patients with PD.

Methods

The clinical data of 65 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at the Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, from September 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Forty patients underwent end-to-end invaginated pancreaticojejunostomy, and 25 underwent the novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy. No significant differences were observed in pancreatic fistula, intraperitoneal infection, intraperitoneal bleeding, reoperation, postoperative hospital stay, or perioperative death between the two groups. However, the novel end-to-side one-layer continuous pancreaticojejunostomy group had significantly shorter operation duration (32.6 ± 5.1 min vs. 8.3 ± 2.2 min, p < 0.001). The incidence of pancreatic fistula in the novel pancreaticojejunostomy group was 12%, including two cases of grade A POPF and only one case of grade B POPF. No cases of grade C POPF occurred. No deaths were observed during the perioperative period.

Conclusions

The novel anastomosis method leads to a shorter operation duration than the traditional anastomosis method and does not increase postoperative complications. In conclusion, it is a simplified and feasible method for pancreatic anastomosis.

Duct-to-mucosa versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.

Rare, long-term complication after pancreatoduodenectomy-a case report of cecal volvulus

Complications after pancreatoduodenectomy are common, and range widely in timing of presentation, relation to pancreatobiliary pathology, and necessity of operative intervention. We present a case of a 74-year-old male with history of pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma who presented 11 months after index operation with cecal volvulus and required emergent right hemicolectomy. Prior history of pancreatoduodenectomy with mobilization of the right colon likely predisposed him to development of this surgical emergency. Patients have altered gastrointestinal anatomy after pancreatoduodenectomy and special care is necessary to protect the afferent biliopancreatic limb during intraoperative exploration, and particularly if right colectomy is necessary.

Symptom Management in Pancreatic Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Despite extensive research that has identified new risk factors, genetic mutations, and therapeutic options, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma continues to be a leading cause of cancer related death. Patients with pancreatic cancer, along with their clinicians, must balance realistic hope alongside a life-threatening diagnosis. As the search for treatments to reduce the morbidity and mortality continues, symptom management and quality of life remain the focus of our efforts. In addition to side effects of cancer-directed therapy, patients are at risk for malnutrition, pain, and fatigue. These factors are often overlooked in practice, so a multidisciplinary team is critical in optimizing the care of patients.

Prognostic impact of simultaneous venous resections during surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of simultaneous venous resection during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) that was preoperatively staged resectable according to NCCN guidelines.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 153 patients who underwent PD for PDAC was performed. Patients were divided into standard PD and PD with simultaneous vein resection (PDVR). Groups were compared to each other in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality, disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

114 patients received PD while 39 patients received PDVR. No differences in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups were detected. Patients in the VR group presented with a significantly shorter OS in the median (13 vs. 21 months, P = 0.011). In subgroup analysis, resection status did not influence OS in the PDVR group (R0 13 vs. R1 12 months, P = 0.471) but in the PD group (R0 23 vs. R1 14 months, P = 0.043). PDVR was a risk factor of OS in univariate but not multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

PDVR for PDAC preoperatively staged resectable resulted in significantly shorter OS regardless of resection status. Patients who require PDVR should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to other oncological indications.

Genetic analysis of subsequent second primary malignant neoplasms in long-term pancreatic cancer survivors suggests new potential hereditary genetic alterations

Background

The principal aim of this report was to study second primary malignant neoplasms (SMNs) in long-term survivors of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with regard to the germline genetic background.

Patients and methods

A total of 118 PDAC patients after a curative-intent surgery who were treated between 2006 and 2011 were analyzed. Of the 22 patients surviving for >5 years, six went on to develop SMNs. A genetic analysis of 219 hereditary cancer-predisposition and candidate genes was performed by targeted next-generation sequencing in germline DNA from 20 of these patients.

Results

Of all the radically resected PDAC patients, six patients went on to subsequently develop SMNs, which accounted for 27% of the long-term survivors. The median time to diagnosis of SMNs, which included two cases of rectal cancer, and one case each of prostate cancer, malignant melanoma, breast cancer, and urinary bladder cancer, was 52.5 months. At the time of analysis, none of these patients had died as a result of PDAC progression. We identified four carriers of germline pathogenic mutations in 20 analyzed long-term survivors. One carrier of the CHEK2 mutation was found among four analyzed patients who developed SMNs. Of the remaining 16 long-term PDAC survivors, 3 patients (19%) carried germline mutation(s) in the MLH1+ ATM, CHEK2, and RAD51D gene, respectively.

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis indicates that SMNs in PDAC survivors are an important clinical problem and may be more common than has been acknowledged to be the case. In patients with good performance status, surgical therapy should be considered, as the SMNs often have a favorable prognosis.

Comparison of Quality of Life before and after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective study

Background

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy, and surgical resection is the only therapeutic option with pancreaticoduodenectomy being considered the standard of care. It is essential to take into account the patients’ Quality of Life after the resection, in order to make more informed decisions about treatment options.

Objective

The aim of the study was to determine perceived Quality of Life levels among patients who undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy, in a period of six months after surgery.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted on all patients (n=40) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in Attikon University General Hospital in Athens, Greece, from January 2013 to June 2015. The Quality of Life was assessed by use of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QOL-PAN26 questionnaires at four phases: First, after admission at the hospital preoperatively, and then one month, three months, and six months postoperatively. Repeated measurements analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in order to evaluate changes in Quality of Life measures during the follow-up (postoperative) period. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 19. A p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 was set as the level of significance.

Results

The study revealed a mixed image. Except for the nausea and vomiting scale, where indeed a symptom increase is initially reported and then gradually decreases below preoperative levels by 6 months, scoring in many symptom scales worsens postoperatively. From first to fourth assessment, fatigue (Mean from 23.61 to 38.72, p=0.005) and financial difficulties scoring (Mean from 5.98 to 42.42, p<0.001) consistently worsen. Functionality scales scoring also tends to get worse between first and fourth assessment, with statistically significant changes for physical (p<0.001), role (p<0.001) and social functioning (p<0.001). However, a slight improvement can be noted in many scales from third to fourth assessment, as in diarrhea (Mean from 32.38 to 29.29), pancreatic pain (Mean from 17.71 to 2.34), global health status (Mean from 50.48 to 52.53) and social functioning (Mean from 43.81 to 48.48) scales.

Conclusions

Quality of Life levels among patients who undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy are getting worse following surgery. However, the longitudinal study of these changes may improve patients’ postoperative life by formulating evidence-based interventions concerning symptoms treatment and psychological and social support.

Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a surgical procedure used to treat diseases of the pancreatic head and, less often, the duodenum. The most common disease treated is cancer, but pancreatoduodenectomy is also used for people with traumatic lesions and chronic pancreatitis. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, the pancreatic stump must be connected with the small bowel where pancreatic juice can play its role in food digestion. Pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) and pancreatogastrostomy (PG) are surgical procedures commonly used to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these procedures have a non-negligible rate of postoperative complications. Since it is unclear which procedure is better, there are currently no international guidelines on how to reconstruct the pancreatic stump after pancreatoduodenectomy, and the choice is based on the surgeon's personal preference.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pancreaticogastrostomy compared to pancreaticojejunostomy on postoperative pancreatic fistula in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 September 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to 30 September 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and screened references of eligible articles and systematic reviews on this subject. There were no language or publication date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical outcomes of PJ compared to PG in people undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed descriptive analyses of the included RCTs for the primary (rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula and mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, rate of surgical re-intervention, overall rate of surgical complications, rate of postoperative bleeding, rate of intra-abdominal abscess, quality of life, cost analysis). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (using PG as the reference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of variability.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality.Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias.There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.

Pilot study of an interdisciplinary supportive care planning intervention in pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is often associated with higher symptom burden, lower functional status, and worse quality of life (QOL). To date, few interventions have focused on the unique QOL needs of patients with pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of an interdisciplinary supportive care planning intervention in patients with pancreatic cancer during disease-focused treatments.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in this prospective, pre- and post-intervention pilot study received a supportive care intervention that included the following three components: comprehensive QOL assessment, case presentation at interdisciplinary care meetings, and two nurse-administered educational sessions on QOL concerns. Patients completed outcome measures that included the FACT-Hep, FACIT-Sp-12, and self-report of finances and out-of-pocket costs since diagnosis. Measures were completed at baseline prior to receiving the intervention, and follow-up occurred at 1 and 2 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients were enrolled during a 4-month period who provided informed consent, received the intervention, and completed the study (58 % accrual). Examination of pre- and post-intervention QOL outcomes revealed changes across the three evaluation time points that were not statistically significant. Patients were highly satisfied with the intervention, with 80 % reporting that the intervention was "excellent." Discussions during the interdisciplinary care meetings and educational sessions were largely focused on physical and psychosocial needs.

CONCLUSIONS

An interdisciplinary supportive care planning intervention was potentially feasible and acceptable for pancreatic cancer patients in an ambulatory care setting.