-
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2024The aim was to explore the optimal neoadjuvant therapy strategy for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, in order to provide a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatments in patients with resectable, borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
The aim was to explore the optimal neoadjuvant therapy strategy for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new neoadjuvant treatment protocols for clinical use.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The authors reviewed literature titles and abstracts comparing three treatment strategies (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and upfront surgery) in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science from 2009 to 2023 to estimate relative odds ratios for resection rate and hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) in all include trials.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies involving 889 patients were included in the analysis. The treatment methods included upfront surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The network meta-analysis results demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery was an effective approach in improving OS for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) patients compared to upfront surgery (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98). Additionally, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly increased the margin negative resection (R0) rate and pathological negative lymph node (pN0) rate in patients with resectable and borderline RPC. However, it is worth noting that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increased the risk of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, including in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the optimal choice for treating patients with resectable and borderline RPC. Future research should focus on optimizing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens to effectively improve OS while reducing the occurrence of adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 38935819
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001313 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2024Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and...
BACKGROUND
Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).
PubMed: 38933652
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1369169 -
Annals of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Jun 2024To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted... (Review)
Review
To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -153.13 mL, = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, = 0.31), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference: -0.00, = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: -3.77 days, = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.
PubMed: 38915256
DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.24-093 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Jun 2024Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a significant complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. CR-POPF is associated with various adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a significant complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. CR-POPF is associated with various adverse outcomes, including high mortality rates. Identifying complication predictors for CR-POPF, such as preoperative CT scan features, including pancreatic attenuation index (PAI) and pancreatic duct diameter (PDD), is critical. This systematic review and meta-analysis consolidate existing literature to assess the impact of these variables on CR-POPF risk.
METHODS
Our comprehensive search, conducted in May 2023, covered PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed cohort studies on pancreaticoduodenectomy, focusing on preoperative CT scan data. Case reports, case series, and studies reporting distal pancreatectomy were excluded. The quality assessment of included articles was done using New-Castle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5. This study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) on 12 May 2023 (registration number: CRD42023414139).
RESULTS
We conducted a detailed analysis of 38 studies with 7393 participants. The overall incidence of CR-POPF was 24%. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that PDD and pancreatic parenchymal thickness were significantly associated with CR-POPF.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on CT scan findings for predicting CR-POPF after Whipple surgery. Age, PDD, and pancreatic parenchymal thickness significantly correlate with CR-POPF.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Risk Factors; Preoperative Period; Incidence
PubMed: 38837835
DOI: 10.1111/ans.19033 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2024Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.
PubMed: 38816619
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10900-0 -
BJS Open May 2024Postoperative pancreatic fistulas remain a driver of major complications after partial pancreatectomy. It is unclear whether coverage of the anastomosis or pancreatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of artificial or autologous coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on postoperative pancreatic fistulas after partial pancreatectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistulas remain a driver of major complications after partial pancreatectomy. It is unclear whether coverage of the anastomosis or pancreatic remnant can reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of autologous or artificial coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on outcomes after partial pancreatectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to March 2024. All RCTs analysing a coverage method in patients undergoing partial pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula development. Subgroup analyses for pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy and artificial or autologous coverage were conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs with 2326 patients were included. In the overall analysis, coverage decreased the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas by 29% (OR 0.71, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P < 0.01). This decrease was also seen in the 12 RCTs covering the remnant after distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.69, 95% c.i. 0.51 to 0.94, P < 0.02) and the 4 RCTs applying autologous coverage after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.53, 95% c.i. 0.29 to 0.96, P < 0.04). Other subgroup analyses (artificial coverage or pancreatoduodenectomy) showed no statistically significant differences. The secondary endpoints of mortality, reoperations, and re-interventions were each affected positively by the use of coverage techniques. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate.
CONCLUSION
The implementation of coverage, whether artificial or autologous, is beneficial after partial pancreatectomy, especially in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with autologous coverage.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Anastomosis, Surgical; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreas
PubMed: 38814751
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae059 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2024This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS
Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.
CONCLUSION
LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.
Topics: Pancreatectomy; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38777892
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10889-6 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jul 2024Improved systemic therapy has made long term (≥ 5 years) overall survival (LTS) after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) increasingly common.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Improved systemic therapy has made long term (≥ 5 years) overall survival (LTS) after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) increasingly common. However, a systematic review on predictors of LTS following resection of PDAC is lacking.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2023. Studies reporting actual survival data (based on follow-up and not survival analysis estimates) on factors associated with LTS were included. Meta-analyses were conducted by using a random effects model, and study quality was gauged by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies with 27,091 patients (LTS: 2,132, non-LTS: 24,959) who underwent surgical resection for PDAC were meta-analyzed. The median proportion of LTS patients was 18.32% (IQR 12.97-21.18%) based on 20 studies. Predictors for LTS included sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative levels of CA19-9, CEA, and albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, tumor grade, AJCC stage, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, pathologic T-stage, nodal disease, metastatic disease, margin status, adjuvant therapy, vascular resection, operative time, operative blood loss, and perioperative blood transfusion. Most articles received a "good" NOS assessment, indicating an acceptable risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis pools all true follow up data in the literature to quantify associations between prognostic factors and LTS after resection of PDAC. While there appears to be evidence of a complex interplay between risk, tumor biology, patient characteristics, and management related factors, no single parameter can predict LTS after the resection of PDAC.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Prognosis; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 38710910
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15281-1 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Apr 2024Despite the increased use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), the association between surgical approach and venous thromboembolism (VTE)... (Review)
Review
Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism when compared to the open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Despite the increased use of minimally invasive approaches for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), the association between surgical approach and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is still unknown. This study aims to compare VTE rates following open (OPD) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).
METHOD
MEDLINE, Web of Sciences and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Studies were considered suitable if the incidence of postoperative VTE in open and minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) pancreatic surgery was reported. The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Five studies including 12 984 patients met the inclusion criteria and were considered for meta-analysis. A total of 11 060 patients underwent OPD and 1924 MIPD. Overall, patients who underwent OPD had a lower rate of VTE compared to MIPD (3.6 % vs 4.6 %, OR (95 % CI) = 0.66 (0.52-0.85), p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed similar results for pulmonary embolism (PE) (1.1 % in OPD vs 1.9 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.54 (0.36-0.80), p 0.002) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1.3 % in OPD vs 3.1 % in MIPD, OR (95 % CI) = 0.48 (0.29-0.79), p 0.004).
CONCLUSION
Patients who undergo minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy have a higher incidence of postoperative VTE when compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy.
PubMed: 38703631
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108314 -
World Journal of Surgery Jun 2024In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there has been some evidence favoring pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) over pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) in the occurrence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there has been some evidence favoring pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) over pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) in the occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) and considering PG as a safer anastomotic technique. However, other publications revealed comparable incidences of POPF attributed to both techniques. The current work attempts to reach a more consolidated conclusion about such an issue.
METHODS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that analyzed the studies comparing PG and PJ during PD in terms of the rate of POPF occurrence. Studies were obtained by searching the Scopus, PubMed Central, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.
RESULTS
35 articles published between 1995 and 2022 presented data from 14,666 patients; 4547 underwent PG and 10,119 underwent PJ. Statistically significant lower rates of POPF (p = 0.044) and clinically relevant CR-POPF (p = 0.043) were shown in the PG group. The post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was significantly higher in the PG group, while no significant difference was found between the two groups in the clinically significant PPH. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the amount of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, DGE, overall morbidity rates, reoperation rates, or mortality rates. The percentage of male sex in the PG group and the percentage of soft pancreas in the PJ group seem to influence the odds ratio of CR-POPF (p = 0.076 and 0.074, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The present study emphasizes the superiority of PG over PJ regarding CR-POPF rates. Higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage were associated with PG. Yet, the clinically significant hemorrhage rate was comparable between the two groups.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Gastrostomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Incidence; Pancreatectomy
PubMed: 38629863
DOI: 10.1002/wjs.12173