Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences. Overall survival was analysed for patients with positive and negative lymph nodes. Results were reported according to the PRISMA statement.

Results

Five RCTs were included, accounting for 724 patients. Extended lymphadenectomy was associated with greater operative time [mean difference: 63 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29-96; P < 0.001], increased need for blood transfusions (mean difference: 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.30; P = 0.030) and greater postoperative morbidity (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.25-2.00; P = 0.030), as well as with prolonged diarrhoea after circumferential autonomic nerve dissection around major vessels (OR 12.2, 95% CI 5.3-28.5; P < 0.001). Median survival was similar across the groups in the whole cohort, as well as in subgroups of patients with, respectively, positive and negative lymph nodes.

Conclusions

Extended lymphadenectomy has a harmful impact on patients undergoing oncological pancreatoduodenectomy compared with standard lymphadenectomy.

SUBMITTER: Orci LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4474502 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis.Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate.Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.84, P?<?.001, I?=?12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69, P?<?.001, I?=?41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21-1.08, P?=?.077, I?=?0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72, P?<?.001, I?=?0). No publication bias was observed among included studies.PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough antibiotic prophylaxis is established in reducing postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs), the optimal antibiotic for prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. The study objective is to evaluate if administration of piperacillin-tazobactam as antibiotic prophylaxis results in decreased 30-day SSI rate compared with cefoxitin in patients undergoing elective PD.Methods and analysisThis study will be a multi-institution, double-arm, non-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial. Adults ≥18 years consented to undergo PD for all indications who present to institutions participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (NSQIP HPB) Collaborative will be included. Data collection will use the NSQIP HPB Collaborative Surgical Clinical Reviewers. Patients will be randomised to either 1-2 g intravenous cefoxitin or 3.375-4.5 g intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam within 60 min of surgical incision. The primary outcome will be 30-day postoperative SSI rate following PD. Secondary outcomes will include 30-day postoperative mortality; specific postoperative complication rate; and unplanned reoperation, length of stay, and hospital readmission. A subset of patients will have bacterial isolates and sensitivities of intraoperative bile cultures and SSIs. Postoperative SSIs and secondary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with the primary predictor as the randomised treatment group. Additional adjustment will be made for preoperative biliary stent presence. Additionally, bacterial cultures and isolates will be summarised by presence of bacterial species and antibiotic sensitivities.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. This trial will evaluate the effect of piperacillin-tazobactam compared with cefoxitin as antibiotic prophylaxis on the hazard of postoperative SSIs. The results will be disseminated regardless of the effect of the intervention on study outcomes. The manuscript describing the effect of the intervention will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when data collection and analyses are complete.Trial registration numberNCT03269994.

Project description:Background and aimsMost patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at a late stage and are not candidates for surgical resection. Many have jaundice requiring biliary drainage, which can be accomplished using ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of ERCP or PTBD on survival among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The aims of our study were to compare overall survival between patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving ERCP with those receiving PTBD, to compare overall survival between patients who received a biliary intervention (ERCP or PTBD) versus those who received no biliary intervention, and to compare secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and costs, between ERCP and PTBD.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Patients with known pancreatic cancer were included if they had a pancreatic head mass and/or evidence of biliary obstruction. We used a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model to estimate overall survival of patients receiving ERCP versus PTBD and overall survival among patients who received a biliary intervention versus no biliary drainage. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, costs, and admissions within 30 days.ResultsOf 14,808 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, 8898 patients (60.0%) underwent biliary drainage and 5910 patients (39.9%) received no biliary intervention. ERCP accounted for most biliary interventions (8271, 93.0%), whereas 623 patients (7.0%) underwent PTBD. In multivariable analysis, ERCP was associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], .67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-.75). When ERCP or PTBD was compared with no biliary intervention, both procedures were associated with a survival benefit (aHR, .51 [95% CI, .49-.54] and .53 [95% CI, .48-.59], respectively). Compared with patients receiving PTBD, those who underwent ERCP had shorter mean length of hospital stay (7.0 ± 5.7 days vs 9.6 ± 6.6 days, respectively; P < .001) and lower hospital charges ($54,899.25 vs $75,246.00, P < .001) but no significant difference in hospitalization or 30-day readmissions.ConclusionsERCP is associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD in pancreatic cancer patients, highlighting the critical role of ERCP in the management of biliary obstruction from pancreatic cancer.