169,784 research outputs found
Predictive factors for long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that underwent surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature
No full textLong-term survivors after pancreatic resection for PDAC are rare, constituting a specific subset of patients that remains poorly understood. This study aims to identify the clinic-pathological, molecular, and therapeutic factors for predicting long-term survival (LTS). A systematic review and random-effect meta-analysis were conducted. Inclusion criteria were PDAC histology, resected patients, studies reporting risk factors, and comparing two groups. The primary endpoint was to evaluate predictive factors for LTS in patients with PDAC who underwent surgery. Results were reported with the Mantel–Haenszel random effects model using Risk Ratio (RR) or Mean Difference (MD). Meta-regression analysis was used to clarify heterogeneity. Nineteen studies, involving a total of 5412 patients, were included: 1097 (20,3%) in group LTS and 4334 (79,7%) in group STS (short-term survivors). These factors were associated to LTS: small size (RR 1.53, 95% IC 1.14; 2.05); T1-T2 stage (RR 1.07, 95% IC 1.03; 1.11); N0 (RR 1.82, 95% IC 1.60; 2.09); AJCC Stage I (RR 2.28 95% IC 1.87; 2.79); low-grade G1-2 (RR 1.21, 95% IC 1.09; 1.34); R0 resection (RR 1.11, 95% IC 1.08; 1.13); low levels of CEA (MD − 4.41, 95% IC − 6.23; − 2.59) and Ca 19.9 (MD − 66.4, 95% IC: − 71.9; − 60.9); absence of perineural invasion (RR 0.93, 95% IC: 0.90; 0.96), lymph-vascular invasion (RR 0.87, 95% IC: 0.83; 0.91), venous invasion (RR 0.63, 95% IC: 0.48; 0.83) and perioperative transfusions (RR 0.56, 95% IC: 0.40; 0.79). Several factors are associated with an LTS. They can be considered reliable indicators for predicting tumor progression
Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy: Myth or reality? A systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis
Get PDFBackground: The superiority of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard distal pancreatectomy has never been demonstrated. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify all comparative studies about radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard distal pancreatectomy. Random-effects analysis was performed, and hazard ratios, odds ratios, and mean differences were calculated. Using trial sequential analysis, type I and II errors were evaluated by comparing the accrued sample size with the required sample size. When the required sample size is superior to the accrued sample size, type I or II errors can be hypothesized. The critical endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, major morbidity and mortality rate, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, length of stay, and operative time. Results: The accrued sample size and required sample size were 1,172 and 176 for the primary endpoint, respectively. The overall survival was similar between the 2 groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-2.0 0). The required sample size reached, and false-negative equivalence can be excluded. Disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, major morbidity and mortality rate, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and operative time are similar and reached required sample sizes, suggesting that false equivalence can be excluded. Length of stay was shorter in radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy than in standard distal pancreatectomy (-3.48 days; -6.66 to -0.31 days). The accrued sample size was 826, and the required sample size was not reached. False-positive results cannot be excluded. Conclusion: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy was not superior in guaranteeing a better overall survival and disease-free survival. The data are robust, and further retrospective comparative studies are unnecessary. (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Contemporary indications for upfront total pancreatectomy
No full textCurrently, advances in surgical techniques, improvements in perioperative care, new formulations of intermediate and long-acting insulin and of modern pancreatic enzyme preparations have allowed obtaining good short and long-term results and quality of life, especially in high-volume centres in performing total pancreatectomy (TP).Thus, the surgeon’s fear in performing TP is not justified and total pancreatectomy can be considered a viable option in selected patients in high-volume centres. The aim of this review was to define the current indications for this procedure, in particular for upfront TP, considering not only the pancreatic disease, but also the surgical approach (open, mini-invasive) and the relationship with vascular resection
Improved survival after pancreatic re-resection of positive neck margin in pancreatic cancer patients. A systematic review and network meta-analysis
No full textThe oncological benefit of achieving a negative pancreatic neck margin through re-resection after a positive frozen section (FS) is debated. Aim of this network meta-analysis is to evaluate the survival benefit of re-resection after intraoperative FS neck margin examination following pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. A systematic search of studies comparing different strategies for the management of positive FS was performed. Patients were classified in three groups based on FS and permanent section (PS): Group A (FS-, PS-R0), Group B (FS+, PS-R0), Group C (FS±, PS-R1). A frequent random-effects network-meta-analysis was made reporting the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were pathological outcomes. Seven retrospectives studies with 4205 patients were included and 99.1% of the pancreatic resections were pancreatoduodenectomies. Group A had the highest probability of better OS (SUCRA = 90%), compared to Group B (SUCRA = 48.7%) and Group C, which was the worst prognostic scenario (SUCRA = 11.3%). Group B had still a probability of longer OS compared to Group C (SUCRA = 48.7% vs 11.3%). Pathological features were more favourable in Group A, with the highest SUCRA for T1-T2 tumors (92.6%), N0 status (89.4%), absence of perineural invasion (92.3%). Heterogeneity was low (τ-value <0.1) for OS, and moderate (τ-values: 0.1–0.6) for pT, pN, and perineural invasion. In conclusion, negative neck margin after primary resection (FS negative) or re-resection of a positive FS was associated with improved survival compared with PS-R1. However, any intraoperative positive FS can be considered as a prognostic factor associated with a more aggressive disease
Comparison of Blumgart Anastomosis with Duct-to-Mucosa Anastomosis and Invagination Pancreaticojejunostomy After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Single-Center Propensity Score Matching Analysis
No full textBackground: The Blumgart anastomosis is a method of pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) which combines the principle of duct-to-mucosa anastomosis with an invagination technique of the pancreas. Methods: Retrospective study involving consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head cancer. Data predictive of pancreatic fistula and postoperative outcomes were collected. The patients were divided into three groups and were compared based on the type of pancreatic anastomosis performed: Blumgart anastomosis (BA), duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (DtoM), and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). The primary endpoint was to determine the occurrence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). The secondary endpoints were to determine whether postoperative pancreatic fistula grade C (POPF C) and/or severe complications occurred as well as to determine the reoperation rate and 30- and 90-day mortality. A propensity score matching analysis was used. Results: Using propensity score matching (PSM), the occurrence of CR-POPF was not significantly different between the BA (21.6%) and the other pancreatic anastomoses (all 31.1%, DtoM = 27.0%; PJ = 35.1%). However, the BA significantly reduced (1) severe complications (0 versus 35.1%; P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (0% versus 12.2%; P = 0.028) with respect to all anastomoses; (2) severe complications (0% versus 29.7%; P < 0.001), POPF grade C (0% versus 16.2%; P = 0.025), and reoperation (2.7% versus 16.2%; P = 0.056) with respect to DtoM; and (3) severe complications (0% versus 40.5%; P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (0% versus 13.5%; P = 0.054) with respect to PJ. Conclusions: Applying the PSM analysis for the first time, the present study seemed to suggest that the BA succeeded in minimizing severe complications after PD
Blumgart Anastomosis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy. A Comprehensive Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression
Get PDFBackground: The superiority of Blumgart anastomosis (BA) over non-BA duct to mucosa (non-BA DtoM) still remains under debate. Methods: We performed a systematic search of studies comparing BA to non-BA DtoM. The primary endpoint was CR-POPF. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), reoperation rate, and length of stay (LOS) were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The meta-analysis was carried out using random effect. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), weighted mean difference (WMD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Results: Twelve papers involving 2368 patients: 1075 BA and 1193 non-BA DtoM were included. Regarding the primary endpoint, BA was superior to non-BA DtoM (RD = 0.10; 95% CI: −0.16 to −0.04; NNT = 9). The multivariate ORs' meta-analysis confirmed BA's protective role (OR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.79). BA was superior to DtoM regarding overall morbidity (RD = −0.10; 95% CI: −0.18 to −0.02; NNT = 25), PPH (RD = −0.03; 95% CI −0.06 to −0.01; NNT = 33), and LOS (− 4.2 days; −7.1 to −1.2 95% CI). Conclusion: BA seems to be superior to non-BA DtoM in avoiding CR-POPF
Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a single centre propensity score matching analysis
Get PDFThe laparoscopic approach is considered as standard practice in patients with body-tail pancreatic neoplasms. However, only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching (PSM) studies have been performed. Thus, additional studies are needed to obtain more robust evidence. This is a single-centre propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent laparoscopic (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) with splenectomy for pancreatic neoplasms. Demographic, intra, postoperative and oncological data were collected. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the operative findings, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes (only in the subset of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-PDAC) and total costs. In total, 205 patients were analysed: 105 (51.2%) undergoing an open approach and 100 (48.8%) a laparoscopic approach. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 75 patients were analysed and showed a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.001), a lower blood loss (P = 0.032), a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) and decreased total costs (P = 0.050) after LDP with respect to ODP. Regarding the subset of patients with PDAC, 22 patients were analysed: they showed a significant shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.050) and a reduction in postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) after LDP with respect to ODP. Oncological outcomes were similar. LDP showed lower hospital stay and postoperative morbidity rate than ODP both in the entire population and in patients affected by PDAC. Total costs were reduced only in the entire population. Oncological outcomes were comparable in PDAC patients
Surgical and oncological implications of the presence of hepatic artery anatomical variations in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single center experience
Get PDFThe presence of an aberrant right hepatic artery (a-RHA) could influence the oncological and postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). A comparative study was conducted, including patients who underwent PD with a-RHA or with normal RHA anatomy. The primary endpoints were R1 resection in all margins (pancreatic, anterior, posterior, superior mesenteric artery, and portal groove), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints were morbidity, mortality, biliary leak (BL), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), length of stay (LOS), and operative time (OT). The selection bias was measured using the d-value and limited using entropy balancing analysis. Patients with arterial variants were 84 (37.5%), 39 (17.4%) of whom had a-RHA from SMA. The patients with a-RHA were more frequently symptomatic (d = 0.652), often affected by PDAC (d = 0.369), and judged borderline resectable (d = 0.588). Neoadjuvant therapy was more frequently proposed for patients with a-RHA (d = 0.465). The patients with a-RHA often had the Wirsung dilated compared to those without a-RHA (d = 0.336). After bias correction, the R1 resection rate on the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margin was higher in the a-RHA group than in patients with normal RHA anatomy (OR 2.3; 1.1-5.2; P = 0.045). OS, DFS, morbidity, mortality, biliary leak (BL), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), length of stay (LOS), and operative time (OT) were similar in unmatched and matched population. The presence of a-RHA seems to increase the risk of R1 resection in the SMA margin
Pancreatic cancer resection in the elderly: state of the art, and future challenges. A systematic review
No full textINTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer resection in the elderly population represents a challenging problem. In addition, a chronological age for the “elderly” is lacking. The aim of the present review was to assess the safety and feasibility of major pancreatic tumor resection in elderly patients, considering different age cut-offs (≥70; ≥75 and ≥80 years old). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, on the PubMmed/MEDLINE database. The population analyzed included elderly patients undergoing pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer as compared with younger patients to evaluate morbidity, mortality, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, length of stay, overall survival, and disease-free survival. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The results of each study were reported using Risk Ratio (RR), Odds Ratio (OR) or Mean Difference and their P value. Twenty-four studies were included in the review for a total of 33,896 cases of which 25,937 (76.5%) were young people and 7378 (23.5%) were elderly people. The elderly age cut-off was mainly defined as ≥70 years old. Regarding the age cut-off ≥70 years old, the results comparing elderly patients (≥70 years) and younger patients (<70 years) were similar; for the age cut-offs ≥75 and ≥80 years old. Higher mortality and morbidity rates were found in the studies due to the fact that patients ≥75 and ≥80 years or older more frequently had major comorbidities than the younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that 1) elderly age cut-off has to be considered as ≥ 70 years old, and 2) age alone is not a contraindication for pancreatic cancer resection. However, elderly patients were frailer and more vulnerable than younger patients, and therefore required a careful preoperative assessment
Trial sequential meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: is it the time to stop the randomization?
Get PDFBackground: The advantages of LPD compared with OPD remain debatable. The study aimed to compare the laparoscopic (LPD) versus open (OPD) for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized studies (RCTs) comparing LPD and OPD was made. The results were reported as relative risk (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). The trial sequential analysis was used to test the type I and type II errors defining the required information size (RIS). The primary outcome was mortality, major morbidity, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). R1 resection, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, biliary fistula, reoperation, readmission, operative time (OT), lymph nodes harvested, and length of stay (LOS) were also studied. Results: Four RCTs, counting 818 patients, were found. The RRs for mortality, major morbidity, and POPF were 1.16, 1.04, and 0.86, without significant differences. The RISs were 35,672, 16,548, and 8206. To confirm this equivalence, at least 34,854, 15,730, and 7338 should be randomized. OT was significantly longer in LPD than OPD, with an MD of 63.22. The LOS was significantly shorter in LPD than in OPD, with − 1.76 days. The RISs were 1297 and 1273, excluding a false-positive result. No significant differences were observed for the remaining endpoints, and RISs suggested that more than 3000 patients should be randomized to confirm the equivalence. Conclusion: The equivalence of LPD and OPD for mortality, major morbidity, and POPF is affected by type II error. The RISs to demonstrate a superiority of one of the two techniques seem unrealistic to obtain
- …
