Evan S Glazer1, Mark C Hornbrook2, Robert S Krouse3. 1. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. 2. The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Cancer Center, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Surgical Care Line, Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Electronic address: mary.wagner@va.gov.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer require treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a meta-analysis of the English language literature (1985-2011) comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass in patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer and analyze associated hospital utilization patterns. METHODS: After identifying five randomized controlled trials comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass, we performed a meta-analysis for dichotomous outcomes, using a random effects model. We compared resource utilization in terms of the number of hospital days before death by reviewing high-quality literature. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-nine patients were identified. We found no statistically significant differences in success rates between the two treatments (risk ratio [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05; P = 0.67). Major complications and mortality were not significantly higher after surgical bypass (RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.87-2.71; P = 0.14). Recurrent biliary obstruction was significantly less frequent after surgical bypass than after stent placement (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.63; P < 0.01). Despite similar overall survival rates, longer survival was associated with more hospital days before death in stent patients than in surgical patients. CONCLUSION: Nearly all patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer benefit from some procedure to manage biliary obstruction. Patients with low surgical risk benefit more from surgery because the risk of recurrence and subsequent hospital utilization are lower than after stent placement. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: Many patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer require treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a meta-analysis of the English language literature (1985-2011) comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass in patients with unresectable pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer and analyze associated hospital utilization patterns. METHODS: After identifying five randomized controlled trials comparing immediate biliary stent placement and immediate surgical biliary bypass, we performed a meta-analysis for dichotomous outcomes, using a random effects model. We compared resource utilization in terms of the number of hospital days before death by reviewing high-quality literature. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-nine patients were identified. We found no statistically significant differences in success rates between the two treatments (risk ratio [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05; P = 0.67). Major complications and mortality were not significantly higher after surgical bypass (RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.87-2.71; P = 0.14). Recurrent biliary obstruction was significantly less frequent after surgical bypass than after stent placement (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.63; P < 0.01). Despite similar overall survival rates, longer survival was associated with more hospital days before death in stent patients than in surgical patients. CONCLUSION: Nearly all patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer benefit from some procedure to manage biliary obstruction. Patients with low surgical risk benefit more from surgery because the risk of recurrence and subsequent hospital utilization are lower than after stent placement. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: K F D Kuhlmann; D van Poll; S M M de Castro; N T van Heek; O R C Busch; T M van Gulik; H Obertop; D J Gouma Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Douglas B Evans; Michael B Farnell; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles Vollmer; Steven M Strasberg; Richard D Schulick Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: P C McGrath; P M McNeill; J P Neifeld; H D Bear; G A Parker; M A Turner; J S Horsley; W Lawrence Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1989-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K D Lillemoe; J L Cameron; J M Hardacre; T A Sohn; P K Sauter; J Coleman; H A Pitt; C J Yeo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Niels A van der Gaag; Erik A J Rauws; Casper H J van Eijck; Marco J Bruno; Erwin van der Harst; Frank J G M Kubben; Josephus J G M Gerritsen; Jan Willem Greve; Michael F Gerhards; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Jean H Klinkenbijl; Chung Y Nio; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Dirk J Gouma Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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: B Laquente; A Calsina-Berna; A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jiménez-Fonseca; I Peiró; A Carrato Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Lindsay A Bliss; Mariam F Eskander; Tara S Kent; Ammara A Watkins; Susanna W L de Geus; Alessandra Storino; Sing Chau Ng; Mark P Callery; A James Moser; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 3.647