Dataset Information

Distal Pancreatectomy with Celiac Axis Resection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Major vascular invasion represents one of the most frequent reasons to consider pancreatic adenocarcinomas unresectable, although in the last decades, demolitive surgeries such as distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) have become a therapeutical option.

Methods

A meta-analysis of studies comparing DP-CAR and standard DP in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was conducted. Moreover, a systematic review of studies analyzing oncological, postoperative and survival outcomes of DP-CAR was conducted.

Results

Twenty-four articles were selected for the systematic review, whereas eleven were selected for the meta-analysis, for a total of 1077 patients. Survival outcomes between the two groups were similar in terms of 1 year overall survival (OS) (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.31, p = 0.24). Patients who received DP-CAR were more likely to have T4 tumors (OR 28.45, 95% CI 10.46 to 77.37, p < 0.00001) and positive margins (R+) (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.17, p = 0.008). Overall complications (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.58, p = 0.008) were more frequent in the DP-CAR group, whereas rates of pancreatic fistula (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65, p = 0.41) were similar.

Conclusions

DP-CAR was not associated with higher mortality compared to standard DP; however, overall morbidity was higher. Celiac axis involvement should no longer be considered a strict contraindication to surgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Considering the different baseline tumor characteristics, DP-CAR may need to be compared with palliative therapies instead of standard DP.

SUBMITTER: Nigri G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8073522 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac resection (DP-CAR) is used to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the advantages and disadvantages of this surgical procedure remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its clinical safety and efficacy.Studies regarding DP-CAR were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases. Articles were selected according to predesigned inclusion criteria, and data were extracted according to predesigned sheets. Clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of DP-CAR were systematically reviewed by hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (OR) using fixed- or random-effects models.Eighteen studies were included. DP-CAR had a longer operating time and greater intraoperative blood loss compared to distal pancreatectomy (DP). A high incidence of vascular reconstruction occurred in DP-CAR: 11.53% (95%CI: 6.88-18.68%) for artery and 33.28% (95%CI: 20.45-49.19%) for vein. The pooled R0 resection rate of DP-CAR was 72.79% (95% CI, 46.19-89.29%). Higher mortality and morbidity rates were seen in DP-CAR, but no significant differences were detected compared to DP; the pooled OR was 1.798 for mortality (95% CI, 0.360-8.989) and 2.106 for morbidity (95% CI, 0.828-5.353). The pooled incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 31.31% (95%CI, 23.69-40.12%) in DP-CAR, similar to that of DP (OR = 1.07; 95%CI, 0.52-2.20). The pooled HR against DP-CAR was 5.67 (95%CI, 1.48-21.75) for delayed gastric emptying. The pooled rate of reoperation was 9.74% (95%CI, 4.56-19.59%) in DP-CAR. The combined 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates in DP-CAR were 65.22% (49.32-78.34%), 30.20% (21.50-40. 60%), and 18.70% (10.89-30.13%), respectively. The estimated means and medians for survival time in DP-CAR patients were 24.12 (95%CI, 18.26-29.98) months and 17.00 (95%CI, 13.52-20.48) months, respectively. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates between DP-CAR and DP, whereas DP-CAR had a better 1-year survival rate compared to palliative treatments. The pooled HR for overall survival between DP-CAR and DP was 1.36 (95%CI: 0.997-1.850); the pooled HR favoring DP-CAR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.25-0.58) for overall survival compared to palliative treatments. The rate of cancer-related pain relief from DP-CAR was 89.20% (95%CI, 77.85-95.10%). The pooled incidence of postoperative diarrhea was 37.10% (95%CI, 20.79-57.00%); however, most diarrhea was effectively controlled.DP-CAR is feasible and acceptable in terms of its survival benefits and improved quality of life. However, it should be performed with caution due to its high postoperative morbidity.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP).MethodsA systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases from MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from 1998 to 2018. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed using statistics/data analysis (Stata®) software, version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas 77845, USA). Dichotomous variables were analyzed by estimation of relative risk (RR) with a 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables were analyzed by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.ResultsTwenty-four studies with 593 CP and 1226 DP were included in the meta-analysis. CP had significantly longer operation time (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.44; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.01). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in CP (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.09; P = 0.007). Overall postoperative morbidity (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.50; P < 0.001), overall pancreatic fistula (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.66; P < 0.001), clinically relevant fistula (RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.16; P < 0.001), and postoperative hemorrhage (RR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.06; P < 0.05) were all significantly higher after CP. On long-term follow-up, DP patients were more likely to have postoperative exocrine (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.84; P < 0.05) and endocrine (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40; P < 0.001) insufficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion requirement, postoperative mortality, reoperation, and tumor recurrence.ConclusionCP is associated with significantly higher morbidity and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. CP should only be reserved for selected patients who require postoperative pancreatic function preservation.

Project description:BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has been suggested to hold some benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) but consensus and data on specific subgroups are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the surgical and oncological outcome and costs between RDP and LDP including subgroups with intended spleen preservation and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsStudies comparing RDP and LDP were included from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase (inception-July 2022). Primary outcomes were conversion and unplanned splenectomy. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, lymph node yield, major morbidity, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital mortality, operative costs, total costs and hospital stay.ResultsOverall, 43 studies with 6757 patients were included, 2514 after RDP and 4243 after LDP. RDP was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 18.21, 95% CI 2.18-34.24), less blood loss (MD = 54.50, 95% CI - 84.49-24.50), and a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55) compared to LDP. In spleen-preserving procedures, RDP was associated with more Kimura procedures (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.37-3.64) and a lower rate of unplanned splenectomies (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). In patients with PDAC, RDP was associated with a higher lymph node yield (MD = 3.95, 95% CI 1.67-6.23), but showed no difference in the rate of R0 resection (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.37). RDP was associated with higher total (MD = 3009.31, 95% CI 1776.37-4242.24) and operative costs (MD = 3390.40, 95% CI 1981.79-4799.00).ConclusionsRDP was associated with a lower conversion rate, a higher spleen preservation rate and, in patients with PDAC, a higher lymph node yield and similar R0 resection rate, as compared to LDP. The potential benefits of RDP need to be weighed against the higher total and operative costs in future randomized trials.