Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Dream or reality?

Effect of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

At present, it is regarded as a safe and efficient operation to treat terminal pancreatic disease. In this paper, we present a summary of the results of the clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic and open-access pancreatic resection for pancreatic carcinoma of the end of the pancreas. Systematic review of the comparison between laparoscopy and open-access pancreatic resection was conducted. Comparative studies published before October 2023 were included. The selection of the studies was done according to a particular classification and exclusion criterion. A few of our results, which were post-surgery, were associated with injury, were compared. Where appropriate, the reliability of the data has been corroborated by a sensitive analysis. Six trials of 2075 patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent distal pancreatic resection to be included in the definitive data analysis. Among them, 447 were treated with open-access surgery and 296 were treated with laparoscope. Six trials showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery(OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.76-3.61 p = 0.20). Four trials did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the risk of postoperative haemorrhage among patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.54-6.26 p = 0.33). Both trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the duration of operation for patients with pancreas cancer who received a distal pancreatectomy between laparoscopy and open surgery (MD, 13.58; 95% CI, -7.31-34.46 p = 0.2). Based on these meta-analyses, the use of laparoscopy or open surgery was not associated with an increase in the risk of postoperative infection or haemorrhage. Furthermore, the duration of the two operations did not differ significantly. These two procedures appear to be a safe and viable choice in the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled study should be performed to verify the validity of this observation.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.

METHODS/DESIGN

DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

DISCUSSION

The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

METHODS

We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching study

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic diseases has been increasingly utilized. However, the use of LDP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial and has not been widely accepted. In this study, the outcomes of LDP versus conventional open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for left-sided PDAC were examined. A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDP or ODP for left-sided PDAC between January 2010 and January 2019 was conducted. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, ASA grade, tumor size, and combined resection. Demographic data, their pathological and short-term clinical parameters, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between the LDP and ODP groups. A total of 197 patients with PDAC were enrolled. There were 115 (58.4%) patients in the LDP group and 82 (41.6%) patients in the ODP group. After 1:1 PSM, 66 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. The LDP group had lesser blood loss (195 vs. 210 mL, p < 0.01), shorter operative time (193.6 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days, p < 0.01), whereas the overall complication rates were comparable between groups (10.6% vs.16.7%, p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between the LDP and ODP groups regarding 3-year recurrence-free or overall survival rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.33, respectively). LDP in the treatment of left-sided PDAC is a technically safe, feasible and favorable approach in short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, patients undergoing LDP than ODP for PDAC had comparable oncological metrics and similar middle-term survival rate.

Learning curve of robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP): experience of the first 100 cases from a high-volume pancreatic center in China

OBJECTIVE

Middle pancreatectomy (MP) is safe and feasible in patients with benign or low-grade malignant tumors located at the neck or proximal body of the pancreas. As a tissue-sparing operation, MP can preserve normal pancreatic function and reduce the risk of postoperative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. However, the morbidity, especially the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate, remains high. A robot-assisted surgical system may provide patients with less trauma; however, there are few reports on robot-assisted middle pancreatectomy (RMP). We describe the experience of RMP at our center to illustrate the learning curve (LC).

METHODS

From August 2010 to July 2017, 100 patients underwent RMP in the Pancreatic Disease Center of Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. Patient characteristics, operative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. The CUSUM curve was analyzed according to operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL) and was used to describe the LC and identify the flexion points.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients who underwent RMP in our hospital, the mean age was 47.5 ± 14.2 years, and 69 patients were female. From the CUSUM curve, we found two flexion points: cases 12 and 44. After 44 cases, the rate of improvement was much faster. We separated the patients into two groups based on the LC (cases 1-44 and cases 45-100). There were significant improvements in operative time (173.1 ± 44.7 min vs. 137.3 ± 30.1 min, p < 0.001) and EBL (103.4 ± 90.0 ml vs. 69.3 ± 53.9 ml, p = 0.021). The overall POPF rate was 32% (32/100), while the incidence rate of biochemical leakage was 14% (14/100). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of POPF or other complications between the two groups. The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was also not different. The 90-day mortality rate was 1%. From our long-term follow-up, pancreatic function was preserved in most patients, with only three cases of endocrine insufficiency and two cases of exocrine insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

RMP was helpful and a good choice for the selected patients. PF was the main complication and has not been improved until now. There were two flexion points in the LC at cases 12 and 44. More cases are needed to gain more experience. A larger sample size and prospective studies are needed to verify the advantage of RMP.

Robotic and laparoscopic surgery of the pancreas: an historical review

Surgery of the pancreas is a relatively new field, with operative series appearing only in the last 50 years. Surgery of the pancreas is technically challenging. The entire field of general surgery changed radically in 1987 with the introduction of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minimally Invasive surgical techniques rapidly became utilized worldwide for gallbladder surgery and were then adapted to other abdominal operations. These techniques are used regularly for surgery of the pancreas including distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. The progression from open surgery to laparoscopy to robotic surgery has occurred for many operations including adrenalectomy, thyroidectomy, colon resection, prostatectomy, gastrectomy and others. Data to show a benefit to the patient are scarce for robotic surgery, although both laparoscopic and robotic surgery of the pancreas have been shown not to be inferior with regard to major operative and oncologic outcomes. While there were serious concerns when laparoscopy was first used in patients with malignancies, robotic surgery has been used in many benign and malignant conditions with no obvious deterioration of outcomes. Robotic surgery for malignancies of the pancreas is well accepted and expanding to more centers. The importance of centers of excellence, surgeon experience supported by a codified mastery-based training program and international registries is widely accepted. Robotic pancreatic surgery is associated with slightly decreased blood loss and decreased length of stay compared to open surgery. Major oncologic outcomes appear to have been preserved, with some studies showing higher rates of R0 resection and tumor-free margins. Patients with lesions of the pancreas should find a surgeon they trust and do not need to be concerned with the operative approach used for their resection. The step-wise approach that has characterized the growth in robotic surgery of the pancreas, in contradistinction to the frenzy that accompanied the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, has allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which lie at the junction of engineering and medical practice. Refinements in robotic surgery depend on a partnership between engineers and clinicians.

Minimally invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: state of art and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) occurs in the core section of the biliary system and has a strong tendency to broadly invade the surrounding vascular system, perineural tissue and major liver parenchyma. Thus, minimally invasive resection can only be achieved in limited cases. This article reviews the current laparoscopic and robotic surgery techniques for HCCA and analyses the difficulties and limitations of the current minimally invasive surgical techniques for HCCA.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases. All studies involving minimally invasive resections of HCCA were included (up to November 2017).

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included, of which eight concerned laparoscopic surgery of HCCA and four involved robotic surgery for HCCA. For laparoscopic surgery, most of the surgical procedures were limited to partial hepatectomy or even bile duct resection; the post-operative morbidity rate was approximately 38.9% (range 0-100%); those with fewer complications were mostly restricted to Bismuth type I or type II carcinomas. For robotic surgery, only one study concerned caudate lobectomy of HCCA, with a reported median operative time of 703 min and post-operative morbidity of 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for HCCA is restricted to highly selected cases and is deemed technically achievable in experienced hands. However, technical and instrumental improvement is needed to reduce the relevant morbidity and popularize the use of minimally invasive surgery to treat HCCA.

Proposal for a structured computed tomography report in the evaluation of pancreatic neoplasms based on expert opinions

Objective

To create a structured computed tomography (CT) report for the systematic evaluation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), based on the opinions of clinicians and surgeons.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective study in which we applied a 21-item questionnaire to experts in pancreatic diseases in order to create a model of a structured abdominal CT report. The questionnaire addressed the location and size of PDACs, as well as their effects on adjacent structures and on the vasculature, together with metastases. We used a Likert scale to determine which of those parameters should be included in the model.

Results

A total of 18 experts (12 surgeons and 6 clinicians) from 9 institutions completed the questionnaire. All of the experts agreed that the following (if present) should be described in the CT report on a PDAC: the degree of enhancement; the diameter and location of the lesion; pancreatic duct obstruction; biliary dilatation; pancreatic atrophy; liver metastases; peritoneal nodules; ascites; lymph node enlargement; and invasion of adjacent structures. More than 80% of the experts agreed that the report should also describe the relationship between the PDAC and the surrounding vasculature.

Conclusion

We have developed a template for a CT report on patients with PDAC, based on the opinions of experts involved in the treatment of such patients.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot surgery is a new method that maintains advantages and overcomes disadvantages of conventional methods, even in pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate safety and benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (robot PD).

METHODS

This study included 237 patients who underwent PD between 2015 and 2017. Demographics and surgical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients underwent robot PD and 186 underwent open PD. Robot PD group had younger age (60.7 vs. 65.4 years, P = 0.006) and lower body mass index (22.7 vs. 24.0, P = 0.007). Robot PD group had lower proportion of patients with firm or hard pancreatic texture (15.7% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.004) and smaller pancreatic duct size (2.3 vs. 3.3 mm, P = 0.002). Two groups had similar operation time (robot vs. open: 335.6 vs. 330.1 min) and complications (15.7% vs. 21.0%), including postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (6.0% vs. 12.0%). Robot PD group had lower postoperative pain score (3.7 vs. 4.1 points, P = 0.008), and shorter postoperative stay (10.6 vs. 15.3 days, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robot PD is comparable to open PD in early outcomes. Robot PD is safe and feasible and enables early recovery; indication for robot PD is expected to expand in the near future.

Metabolomics Applications in Precision Medicine: An Oncological Perspective

Nowadays, cancer therapy remains limited by the conventional one-size-fits-all approach. In this context, treatment decisions are based on the clinical stage of disease but fail to ascertain the individual´s underlying biology and its role in driving malignancy. The identification of better therapies for cancer treatment is thus limited by the lack of sufficient data regarding the characterization of specific biochemical signatures associated with each particular cancer patient or group of patients. Metabolomics approaches promise a better understanding of cancer, a disease characterized by significant alterations in bioenergetic metabolism, by identifying changes in the pattern of metabolite expression in addition to changes in the concentration of individual metabolites as well as alterations in biochemical pathways. These approaches hold the potential of identifying novel biomarkers with different clinical applications, including the development of more specific diagnostic methods based on the characterization of metabolic subtypes, the monitoring of currently used cancer therapeutics to evaluate the response and the prognostic outcome with a given therapy, and the evaluation of the mechanisms involved in disease relapse and drug resistance. This review discusses metabolomics applications in different oncological processes underlining the potential of this omics approach to further advance the implementation of precision medicine in the oncology area.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resection for cancer represents a real challenge for every surgeon. Recent improvements in laparoscopic experience, minimally invasive surgical techniques and instruments make now the minimally invasive approach a real "triumph." There is no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has replaced with great success conventional surgery in many fields, including surgical oncology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

However, its progress in pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma has been dramatically slow. Recent evidence supports the notion that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible and that is becoming the procedure of choice mainly for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. On the other side, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has not yet been widely accepted and there is enormous skepticism when applied for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the potential applications of minimally invasive surgical approaches for this aggressive, heterogeneous, and enigmatic type of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Moreover, the potential future applications of these approaches are discussed with the hope to improve the quality of life as well as the survival rates of pancreatic cancer patients.

Effects of arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide-conjugated quantum dots-induced photodynamic therapy on pancreatic carcinoma in vivo

Quantum dots (QDs) conjugated with integrin antagonist arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptides (QDs-RGD) are novel nanomaterials with a unique optical property: a high molar extinction coefficient. Previously, we have shown that QDs-RGD demonstrate a photodynamic therapy (PDT) effect as new photosensitizers for the pancreatic cancer cell line SW1990 in vitro. Here, we investigate the application of QDs-RGD in mice bearing pancreatic tumors using PDT. To ensure that more photosensitizers accumulated in tumors, QDs-RGD were injected intratumorally. After selection of an adequate dosage for injection from analyses of biodistribution images captured by an IVIS system, PDT was initiated. Three groups were created according to different PDT procedures. In group 1, mice were injected with QDs-RGD intratumorally, and an optical fiber connected to a laser light was inserted directly into the tumor. Irradiation was sustained for 20 min with a laser light (630 nm) at 100 mW/cm2. In group 2, the laser optical fiber was placed around, and not inserted into, tumors. In group 3, PDT was conducted as in group 1 but without injection of QDs-RGD. After 28 days of observation, tumors on the back of mice in group 1 grew slowly (V/V0 =3.24±0.70) compared with the control groups, whose tumors grew quickly, and the mean V/V0 reached 6.08±0.50 (group 2) and 7.25±0.82 (group 3). Histology of tumor tissues showed more necrotic tissues, more inflammatory cells, and less vascular tissue in the PDT group than those in the control groups. These results suggest that QDs-RGD-mediated PDT, with illumination using an optical fiber inserted directly into the tumor, can inhibit the growth of SW1990 tumors with high efficiency in nude mice.

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a difficult and complex operation. The introduction of robotics has opened up new angles in pancreatic surgery. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy relative to its laparoscopic counterpart.

METHODS

A retrospective study was designed to compare the surgical outcomes of 27 robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and 25 laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Perioperative data, including operating time, complication, morbidity and mortality, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The robotic group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean 387 vs. 442 min), shorter hospital stay (mean 17 vs. 24 days), and less blood loss (mean 219 vs. 334 ml) than those in the LPD group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rate, mortality rate, R0 resection rate, and number of harvested lymph node.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is more efficient and secure process than LPD among properly selected patients. RPD is therefore a feasible alternative to the laparoscopic procedure. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the robotic approach for PD.

Metabolic tumor burden: a new promising way to reach precise personalized therapy in PDAC

Pancreatic cancer is currently one of the deadliest solid malignancies and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common type of pancreatic cancer. In the past decade, diagnostics and surgical techniques for PDAC have been evolving steadily; however, clinical outcomes of patients with PDAC have shown little, if any, improvement. Subgroup classification based on accurate prediction of prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer is important for treatment selection and clinical decision-making. The traditional method to evaluate prognosis relies on the TNM staging system, but it may not reflect the true status of every patient due to individual biological differences. Metabolomics is a field of study that involves the identification and quantification of metabolites present in a biological system. Analysis of metabolic differences between cancerous and noncancerous tissues can provide novel insights into tumor biology that are closely associated with disease prognosis and diagnosis. Therefore, evaluation of metabolic tumor burden may improve the accuracy of the clinical decision-making process, thereby facilitating optimization of the treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer.