Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
received:
26
08
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
medline:
12
4
2023
pubmed:
18
2
2023
entrez:
17
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.
METHODS
METHODS
An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36800127
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-13054-2
pii: 10.1245/s10434-022-13054-2
pmc: PMC10085922
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3023-3032Investigateurs
Beatrice Aussilhou
(B)
Sivesh K Kamarajah
(SK)
Stijn van Laarhoven
(S)
Thomas Malinka
(T)
Ravi Marudanayagam
(R)
Claudio Ricci
(C)
Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez
(P)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Asbun HJ, Moekotte AL, Vissers FL, et al. The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):1–14.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003590
pubmed: 31567509
de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):2–9.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002979
pubmed: 30080726
Bjornsson B, Larsson AL, Hjalmarsson C, Gasslander T, Sandstrom P. Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg. 2020;107(10):1281–8.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11554
pubmed: 32259297
Abu Hilal M, Takhar AS. Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: current concepts. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4):443–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.04.196
pubmed: 23890145
van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):10–7.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002561
pubmed: 29099399
Raoof M, Nota C, Melstrom LG, et al. Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: analysis of the National Cancer Database. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(4):651–6.
doi: 10.1002/jso.25170
pubmed: 30114321
pmcid: 6386178
Zhou JY, Xin C, Mou YP, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151189.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151189
pubmed: 26974961
pmcid: 4790929
Lof S, van der Heijde N, Abuawwad M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(2):188–95.
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa039
pubmed: 33711145
Lyman WB, Passeri M, Sastry A, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left pancreatectomy at a high-volume, minimally invasive center. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(9):2991–3000.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6565-6
pubmed: 30421076
Lof S, Korrel M, van Hilst J, et al. Outcomes of elective and emergency conversion in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an international multicenter propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):e1001–7.
Qu L, Zhiming Z, Xianglong T, et al. Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective propensity score-matched study. Int J Surg. 2018;55:81–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.024
pubmed: 29802919
Chopra A, Nassour I, Zureikat A, Paniccia A. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):947–53.
doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00927-y
pubmed: 33394353
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(8):1028–61.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0131
pubmed: 28784865
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76(2):182–8.
doi: 10.1111/his.13975
pubmed: 31433515
Lof S, Vissers FL, Klompmaker S, et al. Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study. Br J Surg. 2021;108(1):80–7.
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa026
pubmed: 33640946
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161(3):584–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
pubmed: 28040257
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142(5):761–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005
pubmed: 17981197
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142(1):20–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001
pubmed: 17629996
Campbell FFA, Verbeke C. Dataset for the histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct 2010(261035):1–27.
Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Gershenwald JE, Compton CC, Hess KR, Sullivan DC, Jessup JM, Brierley JD, Gaspar LE, Schilsky RL, Balch CM, Winchester DP, Asare EA, Madera M, Gress DM, Meyer LR (eds). AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Vol 8: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
van Hilst J, Korrel M, Lof S, et al. Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):608.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05506-z
pubmed: 34503548
pmcid: 8427847
Feng Q, Jiang C, Feng X, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:752236.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.752236
pubmed: 34616686
pmcid: 8489404
Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):128–32.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825fff08
pubmed: 22868357
Liu R, Liu Q, Zhao ZM, Tan XL, Gao YX, Zhao GD. Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116(4):461–9.
doi: 10.1002/jso.24676
pubmed: 28628713
Xu SB, Jia CK, Wang JR, Zhang RC, Mou YP. Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118(1 Pt 2):268–78.
doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.05.003
pubmed: 29798819
Wang HB, Xiong GB, Zhu F, et al. Clavien-Dindo classification and influencing factors analysis of complications after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018;56(11):828–32.
pubmed: 30392302
Sahakyan MA, Tholfsen T, Kleive D, et al. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with poor physical status. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23(6):877–81.
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.004
pubmed: 33092964
Feo CF, Deiana G, Ninniri C, et al. Vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: analysis of long-term outcomes from a single-centre series. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):126.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-021-02238-x
pubmed: 33866970
pmcid: 8054428
Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):372–7.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001055
pubmed: 26158612
Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, et al. Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(1):175–84.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.04.021
pubmed: 26095569
Sahakyan MA, Haugvik SP, Rosok BI, et al. Can standardized pathology examination increase the lymph node yield following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma? HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(2):175–81.
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.08.038
pubmed: 28943397
Korrel M, Lof S, van Hilst J, et al. Predictors for survival in an international cohort of patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(2):1079–87.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08658-5
pubmed: 32583198
Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M, et al. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(25):2395–406.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809775
pubmed: 30575490