Dataset Information

Discrepancies in survival after conversion to open in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The extent by which conversion to open (CTO) during minimally invasive procedures for pancreatic cancer impact survival outcomes is not fully understood.

Methods

The 2010-2017 National Cancer Database identified 12,424 non-metastatic patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: open (OPD), completed MIPD (cMIPD), and CTO. Subgroups were dichotomized by hospital MIPD volume.

Results

Across the study period, 80.6% of patients underwent OPD, 19.4% MIPD, and 24% were CTO. Median overall survival was worse after CTO (21.8 months) than for OPD (23.6 months) or cMIPD (25.2 months) (p < 0.001). Although this effect persisted for <10 MIPD/year, CTO did comparably to OPD at hospitals performing ≥10MIPD/year (CTO = 26.8 months, OPD = 27.9 months; p = 0.128). Ninety-day mortality after CTO was worse at ≤ 10 MIPD/year hospitals (9.3% vs. 2.6%).

Conclusions

Short and long-term survival is impacted by CTO after MIPD, especially at lower surgical volumes, stressing careful adoption while ascending the learning curve.

SUBMITTER: Villano AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10656078 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discrepancies in survival after conversion to open in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

Villano Anthony M AM Ruth Karen K Castellanos Jason J Farma Jeffrey M JM Reddy Sanjay S SS

American journal of surgery 20221028 4

<h4>Background</h4>The extent by which conversion to open (CTO) during minimally invasive procedures for pancreatic cancer impact survival outcomes is not fully understood.<h4>Methods</h4>The 2010-2017 National Cancer Database identified 12,424 non-metastatic patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: open (OPD), completed MIPD (cMIPD), and CTO. Subgroups were dichotomized by hospital MIPD volume.<h4>Results</h4>Across the ...[more]

PMID: 36333156

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOnly a few high-volume centers have reported on long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but none of them have shown superior long-term overall survival (OS) compared with open pancreatic surgery (OPS).ObjectiveTo study long-term survival after MIPS and OPS with curative intent among patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study used a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained electronic database of patient data collected between January 2010 and December 2019. Consecutive patients from a high-volume pancreatic cancer referral center were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to October 2022. Median follow-up time was 56.8 months.ExposuresPatients were matched using propensity score models to study long-term survival.Main outcomes and measuresSurvival outcomes were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables used for propensity score correction were TNM stage, tumor dimension, lymph node status, type of operation, simultaneous vascular resection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, sex, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Additional corrections were made for year of surgery and type of adjuvant chemotherapy.ResultsAfter propensity score matching the sample of 396 patients, there were 198 patients in the MIPS group (89 [44.9%] men; median [range] age, 68 [32-87] years) and 198 in the OPS group (94 [47.5%] men; median [range] age, 67 [39-84] years). Median OS in the MIPS group was 30.7 (95% CI, 26.2-36.8) months compared with 20.3 (95% CI, 17.6-23.5) months after OPS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.87; P = .002). Median disease-free survival (DFS) after MIPS vs OPS was 14.8 (95% CI, 11.8-17.0) months vs 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0-12.1) months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89; P = .003). Additional corrections for year of surgery and type of adjuvant chemotherapy showed better OS (year of surgery: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P = .02; adjuvant chemotherapy: HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005) and DFS (year of surgery: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99; P = .04; adjuvant chemotherapy: HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92; P = .009) for patients undergoing minimally invasive vs open surgery.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of 396 patients with borderline resectable and resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, MIPS was associated with better OS and DFS than OPS. Centralization of MIPS should be stimulated, and pancreatic surgeons should be encouraged to pass the learning curve before implementing MIPS for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in daily clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases.MethodsA systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated.ResultsSixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality.ConclusionOur study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundIntraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP.MethodsA total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves.ResultsFollowing an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values.ConclusionThe evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

Dataset Information

Discrepancies in survival after conversion to open in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Discrepancies in survival after conversion to open in minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets