| Literature DB >> 28144397 |
Cosimo Sperti1, Lucia Moletta1, Gioia Pozza1.
Abstract
The aging of the population results in a rise of number of elderly patients (aged 80 years and older) with pancreatic or periampullary cancer, and more pancreatectomies could eventually be performed in such complex patients. However, early and long-term results after pancreatic resection in octogenarians are still controversial, and may trouble the surgeon when approaching this type of population. Evaluation of reported experiences shows that for almost all Authors, pancreatectomy can be performed safely in elderly population, although overall morbidity and mortality rates were 34.9% and 13.2% respectively, with a mean length of hospital stay of 18 d. These features appear higher in older patients compared to the younger counterpart. Less than 50% of patients underwent adjuvant therapy after operation. Long-term survival is reported not significantly different in aged 80 years and older patients, with a median overall survival time of 17.6 mo. The quality of life after pancreatic resection is only sporadically evaluated but, when considered, it highlights the need of health facility service after operation for these "frail" patients. Prospective studies on the quality of life of pancreatectomized octogenarians are welcome. Proper selection of patients, geriatric assessment with multidisciplinary approach, centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume centres and rehabilitation programs after surgery appear to be crucial points in order to improve surgical treatments of pancreatic tumors in very elderly patients.Entities:
Keywords: Elderly; Octogenarian; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic neoplasms; Survival
Year: 2017 PMID: 28144397 PMCID: PMC5241524 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i1.30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol
Type of periampullary neoplasms
| Chen et al[ | 16 | 82.3 | 1 | 15 | 5 |
| Makary et al[ | 207 | 82 | 30 | 177 | 96 |
| Finlayson et al[ | 2915 | NR | 0 | 2915 | NR |
| Riall et al[ | 214 | NR | 50 | 164 | NR |
| Hardacre et al[ | 32 | 82 | 2 | 30 | 25 |
| Tani et al[ | 25 | 82.3 | 3 | 22 | 10 |
| Lee et al[ | 74 | 82.6 | 16 | 58 | 45 |
| Khan et al[ | 53 | NR | 0 | 53 | 53 |
| Stauffer et al[ | 32 | 82.1 | 11 | 21 | 18 |
| Hatzaras et al[ | 27 | 83.4 | 0 | 27 | 24 |
| Melis et al[ | 25 | 83 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
| Oguro et al[ | 22 | 81.5 | 0 | 22 | 8 |
| Turrini et al[ | 64 | 83 | 0 | 64 | 64 |
| Belyaev et al[ | 38 | 82 | NR | NR | NR |
| Beltrame et al[ | 23 | 82.6 | 1 | 22 | 20 |
| Kinoshita et al[ | 26 | 82 | 0 | 26 | 26 |
| Total | 3793 | 82.2 | 114 | 3641 | 419 |
NR: Not reported.
Type of surgical resections and American Society of Anesthesiologists score
| Chen et al[ | 16 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Makary et al[ | 197 | 0 | 10 | 2.4 (5) | NR | NR |
| Finlayson et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Riall et al[ | 155 | 48 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Hardacre et al[ | 26 | 5 | 1 | 12.5 (4) | 8 | 24 |
| Tani et al[ | 25 | 0 | 0 | 4 (1) | NR | NR |
| Lee et al[ | 74 | 0 | 0 | 14.9 (11) | NR | NR |
| Khan et al[ | 18 | 10 | 4 | 6.25 (2) | 7 | 46 |
| Stauffer et al[ | 20 | 5 | 0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Hatzaras et al[ | 53 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR |
| Melis et al[ | 25 | 0 | 0 | 4 (1) | 7 | 17 |
| Oguro et al[ | 22 | 0 | 0 | 23 (5) | 21 | 1 |
| Turrini et al[ | 56 | 8 | 0 | 11 (7) | 37 | 23 |
| Belyaev et al[ | 27 | 3 | 8 | NR | NR | NR |
| Beltrame et al[ | 21 | 2 | 0 | 8.7 (2) | 5 | 18 |
| Kinoshita et al[ | 16 | 9 | 1 | 39 (10) | NR | NR |
| Total | 751 | 90 | 24 | 85 | 129 | |
PD: Pancreaticoduodenectomy; DP: Distal pancreatectmy; TP: Total pancreatectomy; NR: Not reported; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Perioperative outcomes after pancreatic resection
| Chen et al[ | 13.0 (2) | 51 (8) | 25.0 |
| Makary et al[ | 4.0 (8) | 53 (109) | 11.0 |
| Finlayson et al[ | 15.5 (452) | NR | 20.4 |
| Riall et al[ | 11.4 (24) | NR | 15.0 |
| Hardacre et al[ | 0 | 66 (21) | 11.0 |
| Tani et al[ | NR | 44 (11) | 25.0 |
| Lee et al[ | 5.4 (4) | 47 (35) | 10.5 |
| Khan et al[ | 2.0 (1) | 51 (27) | 13.5 |
| Stauffer et al[ | 0 | 50 (16) | 13.3 |
| Hatzaras et al[ | 3.7 (1) | 52 (14) | 12.0 |
| Melis et al[ | 4.0 (1) | 68 (17) | 20.0 |
| Oguro et al[ | 4.5 (1) | 27 (6) | 31.5 |
| Turrini et al[ | 4.7 (3) | 56 (36) | 24.9 |
| Belyaev et al[ | 11.4 (4) | NR | 15.0 |
| Beltrame et al[ | 0 (0) | 43 (10) | 13.5 |
| Kinoshita et al[ | 0 (0) | 8 (2) | 25.8 |
| Total | 13.2 (501) | 34.9 (306) | 18.0 |
NR: Not reported.
Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III;
Riall et al[9] excluded, because only severe complications were reported.
Postoperative complications and reoperation rates
| Chen et al[ | 2 | 3 | 3 | NR |
| Makary et al[ | 21 | 32 | 0 | 5.6 (11) |
| Finlayson et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Riall et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Hardacre et al[ | 3 | 4 | 5 | 22.0 (7) |
| Tani et al[ | 1 | 6 | 0 | NR |
| Lee et al[ | 3 | NR | NR | 5.4 (4) |
| Khan et al[ | 6 | 9 | 5 | 1.9 (1) |
| Stauffer et al[ | NR | NR | NR | 6.2 (2) |
| Hatzaras et al[ | 3 | 0 | NR | 4.0 (1) |
| Melis et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Oguro et al[ | 11 | 5 | 4 | 4.5 (1) |
| Turrini et al[ | 10 | NR | 10 | 10.9 (7) |
| Belyaev et al[ | NR | NR | NR | 13.1 (5) |
| Beltrame et al[ | 4 | 0 | 1 | 13.0 (3) |
| Kinoshita et al[ | 5 | 3 | 1 | NR |
| Total | 69 | 62 | 29 | 7.5 (43) |
NR: Not reported.
Long-term results
| Chen et al[ | NR | 17.6 | NR | NR |
| Makary et al[ | NR | 19 | 59.1 | 24.4 |
| Finlayson et al[ | NR | NR | NR | 11.3 |
| Riall et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Hardacre et al[ | 31.2 (10) | 14.4 | 57.0 | 24.0 |
| Tani et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Lee et al[ | NR | 11.6 | NR | NR |
| Khan et al[ | 22 | 13.5 | NR | NR |
| Stauffer et al[ | NR | NR | 67.0 | 42.0 |
| Hatzaras et al[ | NR | 33.3 | NR | 33.1 |
| Melis et al[ | NR | 17.3 | 68.2 | 4.5 |
| Oguro et al[ | 0 (0) | 13.0 | NR | 46.0 |
| Turrini et al[ | 23.4 (15) | 30.0 | 75.7 | 0 |
| Belyaev et al[ | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Beltrame et al[ | 30.0 (7) | 19.0 | NR | NR |
| Kinoshita et al[ | 50.0 (13) | 12.4 | 50.0 | NR |
NR: Not reported.