-
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2024The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in AA and DA.
METHODS
The study searched PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for observational or randomized studies published between 2002 and 2022 evaluating survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic AA or DA who received systemic therapy and surgical resection. The data extracted included overall survival, progression-free survival, and pathologic response (PR) rate.
RESULTS
From the 347 abstracts identified in this study, 29 reports were reviewed in full, and 15 were included in the final review. The selected studies published from 2007 to 2022 were retrospective. Eight were single-center studies; five used the National Cancer Database (NCDB); and two were European multicenter/national studies. Overall, no studies identified survival differences between NAT and upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy). Two NCDB studies reported longer survival with NAT/AT than with surgery. Five single-center studies reported a significant portion of NAT patients who achieved PR, and one study identified major PR as an independent predictor of survival. Other outcomes associated with NAT included conversion from unresectable to resectable disease, reduced lymph node positivity, and decreased local recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
Evidence supporting the use of NAT in AA and DA is weak. No randomized studies exist, and observational data show mixed results. For patients with DA and AA, NAT appears safe, but better evidence is needed to understand the preferred multidisciplinary management of DA and AA periampullary malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Combined Modality Therapy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952021
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14531-y -
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Nov 2023Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower gastrointestinal (LGI) injury, although these relationships have not yet been fully elucidated.
METHODS
We searched all the relevant studies published until September 2022 that examined the risk of PPIs for LGI bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of LGI bleeding (small bowel (SB) or colorectal bleeding) between PPI users and non-users. A subgroup analysis of patients consuming aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 341,063 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The use of PPIs was associated with the risk of LGI bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 1.42 [1.16-1.73]; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 3.23 [1.56-6.71]). An association between PPI use and the risk of LGI bleeding was also identified in the subgroup of aspirin or NSAID users (OR [95% CI] = 1.64 [1.49-1.80]; HR [95% CI] = 6.55 [2.01-21.33]). In the bleeding site-specific analyses, the risk of SB bleeding was associated with PPI use (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.30-1.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
PPI use was associated with an increased risk of LGI bleeding, particularly SB bleeding. This association was particularly pronounced among aspirin and NSAID users. Inappropriate PPI prescriptions should be avoided in patients with LGI bleeding and a low risk of upper gastrointestinal disease.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Aspirin; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37553807
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12448