Eliza W Beal1, Djhenne Dalmacy1, Alessandro Paro1, J Madison Hyer1, Jordan Cloyd1, Mary Dillhoff1, Aslam Ejaz1, Timothy M Pawlik2. 1. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite its rising adoption, the use of minimally invasive (MIS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. We sought to compare MIS and open PD for pancreatic cancer resection in terms of short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes using the win ratio, a novel statistical approach. METHODS: Patients undergoing PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma 2010-2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were paired based on age, sex, race, tumor size, Charlson-Deyo score, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on 30-day and 3-year mortality, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, surgical margin status, examination of at least 11 lymph nodes, extended length of stay, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Among 18,936 patients, median age was 67 (IQR: 60-74); most patients had stage II disease at diagnosis (n = 16,530, 87.3%) and tumor size ≥ 2 cm (n = 15,880, 83.9%). The majority of patients underwent open PD (n = 16,409, 86.7%) versus MIS PD (n = 2527, 13.3%). For every matched patient-patient pair, the odds of the patient undergoing MIS PD "winning" were 1.14 (95%CI 1.13-1.15) higher versus open PD. The benefits of MIS PD were most pronounced among patients with tumor size < 2 cm (WR 1.21, 95%CI 1.13-1.30 versus ≥ 2 cm, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.12-1.14) and patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to resection (WR 1.28, 95%CI 1.23-1.32 versus no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.11-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: MIS PD may be preferable to open PD based on a hierarchical composite outcome that considered short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Despite its rising adoption, the use of minimally invasive (MIS) pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. We sought to compare MIS and open PD for pancreatic cancer resection in terms of short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes using the win ratio, a novel statistical approach. METHODS: Patients undergoing PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma 2010-2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were paired based on age, sex, race, tumor size, Charlson-Deyo score, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on 30-day and 3-year mortality, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, surgical margin status, examination of at least 11 lymph nodes, extended length of stay, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Among 18,936 patients, median age was 67 (IQR: 60-74); most patients had stage II disease at diagnosis (n = 16,530, 87.3%) and tumor size ≥ 2 cm (n = 15,880, 83.9%). The majority of patients underwent open PD (n = 16,409, 86.7%) versus MIS PD (n = 2527, 13.3%). For every matched patient-patient pair, the odds of the patient undergoing MIS PD "winning" were 1.14 (95%CI 1.13-1.15) higher versus open PD. The benefits of MIS PD were most pronounced among patients with tumor size < 2 cm (WR 1.21, 95%CI 1.13-1.30 versus ≥ 2 cm, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.12-1.14) and patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to resection (WR 1.28, 95%CI 1.23-1.32 versus no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, WR 1.13, 95%CI 1.11-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: MIS PD may be preferable to open PD based on a hierarchical composite outcome that considered short-term, long-term, and oncologic outcomes.
Authors: Ignasi Poves; Fernando Burdío; Olga Morató; Mar Iglesias; Aleksander Radosevic; Lucas Ilzarbe; Laura Visa; Luís Grande Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Horacio J Asbun; Alma L Moekotte; Frederique L Vissers; Filipe Kunzler; Federica Cipriani; Adnan Alseidi; Michael I D'Angelica; Alberto Balduzzi; Claudio Bassi; Bergthor Björnsson; Ugo Boggi; Mark P Callery; Marco Del Chiaro; Felipe J Coimbra; Claudius Conrad; Andrew Cook; Alessandro Coppola; Christos Dervenis; Safi Dokmak; Barish H Edil; Bjørn Edwin; Pier C Giulianotti; Ho-Seong Han; Paul D Hansen; Nicky van der Heijde; Jony van Hilst; Caitlin A Hester; Melissa E Hogg; Nicolas Jarufe; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Tobias Keck; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov; Norihiro Kokudo; David A Kooby; Maarten Korrel; Francisco J de Leon; Nuria Lluis; Sanne Lof; Marcel A Machado; Nicolas Demartines; John B Martinie; Nipun B Merchant; I Quintus Molenaar; Cassadie Moravek; Yi-Ping Mou; Masafumi Nakamura; William H Nealon; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Patrick Pessaux; Henry A Pitt; Patricio M Polanco; John N Primrose; Arab Rawashdeh; Dominic E Sanford; Palanisamy Senthilnathan; Shailesh V Shrikhande; John A Stauffer; Kyoichi Takaori; Mark S Talamonti; Chung N Tang; Charles M Vollmer; Go Wakabayashi; R Matthew Walsh; Shin-E Wang; Michael J Zinner; Christopher L Wolfgang; Amer H Zureikat; Maurice J Zwart; Kevin C Conlon; Michael L Kendrick; Herbert J Zeh; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Björn Redfors; John Gregson; Aaron Crowley; Thomas McAndrew; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Gregg W Stone; Stuart J Pocock Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jony van Hilst; Thijs de Rooij; Koop Bosscha; David J Brinkman; Susan van Dieren; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Michael F Gerhards; Ignace H de Hingh; Tom M Karsten; Daniel J Lips; Misha D Luyer; Olivier R Busch; Sebastiaan Festen; Marc G Besselink Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-01-24
Authors: C Palanivelu; P Senthilnathan; S C Sabnis; N S Babu; S Srivatsan Gurumurthy; N Anand Vijai; V P Nalankilli; P Praveen Raj; R Parthasarathy; S Rajapandian Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 6.939