BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To study pre-operative and peri-operative course and outcome on follow up after pancreaticoduodenenctomy (PD) for resectable pancreatic cancer amongst patients receiving self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). METHODS: Medical charts of consecutively reviewed patients (2005-2009) with resectable pancreatic cancer and SEMS placement before PD at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were studied. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (mean age, 68 ± 9 years; 54% males) undergoing PD after SEMS placement were analyzed. Of these, 70% (55/79) had come with previous plastic stents placed within a median of 29 (5-216) days because of presentation and most (95%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation after SEMS placement. The median interval between SEMS placement and PD was 120 (range 28-306) days. There were no technical difficulties during PD. The resected tumor was stage T3 in 72 patients, positive node in 44, lymphovascular invasion in 47, and perineural invasion in 62. Within 30 days after surgery, 26 (33%) patients developed complications requiring intervention, but none died. During a median follow-up of 349 (14-1,508) days after surgery, 32 (41%) patients developed metastatic disease, and 20 (25%) died; median survival was approximately 3 years. Development of metastatic disease during follow-up independently predicted survival with hazard ratio of 16 (95% CI: 4-68; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the tendency of avoiding the use of metal stents for biliary decompression amongst patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, our study demonstrated that SEMS did not adversely affect surgical technique, postoperative course, or long-term outcome. Therefore, metal stents should be considered for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who will undergo preoperative chemoradiation.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To study pre-operative and peri-operative course and outcome on follow up after pancreaticoduodenenctomy (PD) for resectable pancreatic cancer amongst patients receiving self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). METHODS: Medical charts of consecutively reviewed patients (2005-2009) with resectable pancreatic cancer and SEMS placement before PD at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were studied. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (mean age, 68 ± 9 years; 54% males) undergoing PD after SEMS placement were analyzed. Of these, 70% (55/79) had come with previous plastic stents placed within a median of 29 (5-216) days because of presentation and most (95%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation after SEMS placement. The median interval between SEMS placement and PD was 120 (range 28-306) days. There were no technical difficulties during PD. The resected tumor was stage T3 in 72 patients, positive node in 44, lymphovascular invasion in 47, and perineural invasion in 62. Within 30 days after surgery, 26 (33%) patients developed complications requiring intervention, but none died. During a median follow-up of 349 (14-1,508) days after surgery, 32 (41%) patients developed metastatic disease, and 20 (25%) died; median survival was approximately 3 years. Development of metastatic disease during follow-up independently predicted survival with hazard ratio of 16 (95% CI: 4-68; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the tendency of avoiding the use of metal stents for biliary decompression amongst patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, our study demonstrated that SEMS did not adversely affect surgical technique, postoperative course, or long-term outcome. Therefore, metal stents should be considered for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who will undergo preoperative chemoradiation.
Authors: Ross A Abrams; Andrew M Lowy; Eileen M O'Reilly; Robert A Wolff; Vincent J Picozzi; Peter W T Pisters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christopher Lawrence; Douglas A Howell; Donald E Conklin; Andreas M Stefan; Ronald F Martin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sarah E Greer; J Marc Pipas; John E Sutton; Bassem I Zaki; Michael Tsapakos; Thomas A Colacchio; Jennifer J Gibson; Daniel C Wiener; Gregory H Ripple; Richard J Barth Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-12-27 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Douglas B Evans; Gauri R Varadhachary; Christopher H Crane; Charlotte C Sun; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Huamin Wang; Karen R Cleary; Gregg A Staerkel; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Elizabeth A Lano; Linus Ho; Renato Lenzi; James L Abbruzzese; Robert A Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lianne K Cavell; Peter J Allen; Cjloe Vinoya; Anne A Eaton; Mithat Gonen; Hans Gerdes; Robin B Mendelsohn; Michael I D'Angelica; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald Dematteo; William R Jarnagin; Robert C Kurtz; Mark A Schattner Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Dirk J Grünhagen; Declan F J Dunne; Richard P Sturgess; Nick Stern; Stephen Hood; Stephen W Fenwick; Graeme J Poston; Hassan Z Malik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 3.647