Lorenzo A Orci1,2, Jeremy Meyer1,2, Christophe Combescure3,4, Leo Bühler1,2, Thierry Berney1,2, Philippe Morel1,2, Christian Toso1,2. 1. Division of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Centre de Recherche Clinique, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences. Overall survival was analysed for patients with positive and negative lymph nodes. Results were reported according to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, accounting for 724 patients. Extended lymphadenectomy was associated with greater operative time [mean difference: 63 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29-96; P < 0.001], increased need for blood transfusions (mean difference: 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.30; P = 0.030) and greater postoperative morbidity (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.25-2.00; P = 0.030), as well as with prolonged diarrhoea after circumferential autonomic nerve dissection around major vessels (OR 12.2, 95% CI 5.3-28.5; P < 0.001). Median survival was similar across the groups in the whole cohort, as well as in subgroups of patients with, respectively, positive and negative lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Extended lymphadenectomy has a harmful impact on patients undergoing oncological pancreatoduodenectomy compared with standard lymphadenectomy.
BACKGROUND: Lymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences. Overall survival was analysed for patients with positive and negative lymph nodes. Results were reported according to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, accounting for 724 patients. Extended lymphadenectomy was associated with greater operative time [mean difference: 63 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29-96; P < 0.001], increased need for blood transfusions (mean difference: 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.30; P = 0.030) and greater postoperative morbidity (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.25-2.00; P = 0.030), as well as with prolonged diarrhoea after circumferential autonomic nerve dissection around major vessels (OR 12.2, 95% CI 5.3-28.5; P < 0.001). Median survival was similar across the groups in the whole cohort, as well as in subgroups of patients with, respectively, positive and negative lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Extended lymphadenectomy has a harmful impact on patients undergoing oncological pancreatoduodenectomy compared with standard lymphadenectomy.
Authors: Michael B Farnell; Randall K Pearson; Michael G Sarr; Eugene P DiMagno; Lawrence J Burgart; Tamela R Dahl; Nathan Foster; Daniel J Sargent Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; V DiCarlo; R Dionigi; F Mosca; P Pederzoli; C Pasquali; G Klöppel; K Dhaene; F Michelassi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Taylor A Sohn; Kurtis A Campbell; Patricia K Sauter; JoAnn Coleman; Ross A Abrams; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Taylor S Riall; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Kurtis A Campbell; Patricia K Sauter; JoAnn Coleman; Ross A Abrams; Daniel Laheru; Ralph H Hruban; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: L Khoja; A Backen; R Sloane; L Menasce; D Ryder; M Krebs; R Board; G Clack; A Hughes; F Blackhall; J W Valle; C Dive Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ralph F Staerkle; Raphael Nicolas Vuille-Dit-Bille; Christopher Soll; Rebekka Troller; Jaswinder Samra; Milo A Puhan; Stefan Breitenstein Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Orlando Jorge M Torres; Eduardo de Souza M Fernandes; Rodrigo Rodrigues Vasques; Fabio Luís Waechter; Paulo Cezar G Amaral; Marcelo Bruno de Rezende; Roland Montenegro Costa; André Luís Montagnini Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2017 Jul-Sep