Thomas Blanc1,2,3, Pierre Meignan4,5, Nicolas Vinit4, Quentin Ballouhey6, Luca Pio4, Carmen Capito4, Caroline Harte7, Fabrizio Vatta4, Louise Galmiche-Rolland8, Véronique Minard9, Daniel Orbach10, Laureline Berteloot11, Cécile Muller4, Jules Kohaut4, Aline Broch4, Karim Braik5, Aurélien Binet5, Yves Heloury4,12, Laurent Fourcade6, Hubert Lardy5, Sabine Sarnacki4,12. 1. Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. thomas.blanc@aphp.fr. 2. Université de Paris, Paris, France. thomas.blanc@aphp.fr. 3. Département « Croissance et Signalisation », Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR8253, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U1151, Institut Necker Enfants Malades, Université de Paris, Paris, France. thomas.blanc@aphp.fr. 4. Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 5. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital Clocheville, Tours, France. 6. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hôpital des Enfants, Limoges, France. 7. Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 8. Department of Pathology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 9. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 10. Department of Pediatric Oncology SIREDO Oncology Center (Care, Innovation and Research for Children and AYA with Cancer), Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France. 11. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 12. Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While robotics has become commonplace in adult oncology, it remains rare in pediatric oncology due to the rarity of childhood cancers. We present the results of a large nationwide experience with robotic oncology, with the aim of providing practical and feasible guidelines for child selection. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis performed over a period of 4 years. Treatment was delivered according to the Société Internationale d'Oncologie Pédiatrique/International Society of Paediatric Oncology Europe Neuroblastoma Group (SIOP/SIOPEN) protocols. Indications were approved by a certified tumor board. RESULTS: Overall, 100 tumors were resected during 93 procedures (abdomen, 67%; thorax, 17%; pelvis, 10%; retroperitoneum, 6%) in 89 children (56 girls). The median age at surgery was 8.2 years (range 3.6-13); 19 children (21%) harbored germinal genetic alterations predisposing to cancer. No intraoperative tumor ruptures occurred. Seven conversions (8%) to an open approach were performed. Neuroblastic tumors (n = 31) comprised the main group (18 neuroblastomas, 4 ganglioneuroblastomas, 9 ganglioneuromas) and renal tumors comprised the second largest group (n = 24, including 20 Wilms' tumors). The remaining 45 tumors included neuroendocrine (n = 12), adrenal (n = 9), germ-cell (n = 7), pancreatic (n = 4), thymic (n = 4), inflammatory myofibroblastic (n = 4), and different rare tumors (n = 5). Overall, 51 tumors were malignant, 2 were borderline, and 47 were benign. The median hospital stay was 3 days (2-4), and five postoperative complications occurred within the first 30 days. During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, one child (Wilms' tumor) presented with pleural recurrence. One girl with Wilms' tumor died of central nervous system metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for pediatric tumors is a safe option in highly selected cases. Indications should be discussed by tumor boards to avoid widespread and uncontrolled application.
BACKGROUND: While robotics has become commonplace in adult oncology, it remains rare in pediatric oncology due to the rarity of childhood cancers. We present the results of a large nationwide experience with robotic oncology, with the aim of providing practical and feasible guidelines for child selection. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis performed over a period of 4 years. Treatment was delivered according to the Société Internationale d'Oncologie Pédiatrique/International Society of Paediatric Oncology Europe Neuroblastoma Group (SIOP/SIOPEN) protocols. Indications were approved by a certified tumor board. RESULTS: Overall, 100 tumors were resected during 93 procedures (abdomen, 67%; thorax, 17%; pelvis, 10%; retroperitoneum, 6%) in 89 children (56 girls). The median age at surgery was 8.2 years (range 3.6-13); 19 children (21%) harbored germinal genetic alterations predisposing to cancer. No intraoperative tumor ruptures occurred. Seven conversions (8%) to an open approach were performed. Neuroblastic tumors (n = 31) comprised the main group (18 neuroblastomas, 4 ganglioneuroblastomas, 9 ganglioneuromas) and renal tumors comprised the second largest group (n = 24, including 20 Wilms' tumors). The remaining 45 tumors included neuroendocrine (n = 12), adrenal (n = 9), germ-cell (n = 7), pancreatic (n = 4), thymic (n = 4), inflammatory myofibroblastic (n = 4), and different rare tumors (n = 5). Overall, 51 tumors were malignant, 2 were borderline, and 47 were benign. The median hospital stay was 3 days (2-4), and five postoperative complications occurred within the first 30 days. During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, one child (Wilms' tumor) presented with pleural recurrence. One girl with Wilms' tumor died of central nervous system metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for pediatric tumors is a safe option in highly selected cases. Indications should be discussed by tumor boards to avoid widespread and uncontrolled application.
Authors: Elvira C van Dalen; Manou S de Lijster; Lieve Gj Leijssen; Erna Mc Michiels; Leontien Cm Kremer; Huib N Caron; Daniel C Aronson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-05
Authors: Elizabeth Ward; Carol DeSantis; Anthony Robbins; Betsy Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Hervé J Brisse; M Beth McCarville; Claudio Granata; K Barbara Krug; Sandra L Wootton-Gorges; Kimio Kanegawa; Francesco Giammarile; Matthias Schmidt; Barry L Shulkin; Katherine K Matthay; Valerie J Lewington; Sabine Sarnacki; Barbara Hero; Michio Kaneko; Wendy B London; Andrew D J Pearson; Susan L Cohn; Tom Monclair Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Mirallié; M D Leclair; P de Lagausie; D Weil; V Plattner; C Duverne; A DeWint; G Podevin; Y Héloury Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Thomas P Cundy; Hani J Marcus; James Clark; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Azad S Najmaldin; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi Journal: Eur J Pediatr Surg Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 2.191
Authors: Gordan M Vujanić; Manfred Gessler; Ariadne H A G Ooms; Paola Collini; Aurore Coulomb-l'Hermine; Ellen D'Hooghe; Ronald R de Krijger; Daniela Perotti; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Christian Vokuhl; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Norbert Graf Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 14.432