0
Original Article |

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive and Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Deepa Magge, MD; William Gooding, MS; Haroon Choudry, MD; Jennifer Steve, BA; Jennifer Steel, PhD; Amer Zureikat, MD; Alyssa Krasinskas, MD; Mustapha Daouadi, MD; Kenneth K. W. Lee, MD; Steven J. Hughes, MD; Herbert J. Zeh, MD; A. James Moser, MD
JAMA Surg. 2013;148(6):525-531. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance Multicenter studies indicate that outcomes of open (ODP) and minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are equivalent for benign lesions. However, data for pancreatic carcinoma are limited.

Objective To compare outcomes of ODP and MIDP for early-stage pancreatic ductal carcinoma to determine relative safety and oncologic efficacy.

Design Retrospective analysis of 62 consecutive patients undergoing ODP or MIDP for pancreatic ductal carcinoma by intention to treat with propensity scoring to correct for selection bias.

Setting A high-volume university center for pancreatic surgery.

Participants Sixty-two patients at a single institution.

Interventions Patients underwent ODP or MIDP.

Main Outcome Measures Perioperative mortality, morbidity, readmission, postoperative complications, disease progression, and overall survival.

Results Thirty-four patients underwent ODP, and 28 underwent MIDP with 5 conversions to ODP. No significant differences in age, body mass index, performance status, tumor size, or radiographic stage were identified. High rates of margin-negative resection (ODP, 88%; MIDP, 86%) and median lymph node clearance (ODP, 12; MIDP, 11) were achieved in both groups with equal rates and severity of postoperative complications (ODP, 50%; MIDP, 39%) and pancreatic fistula (ODP, 29%; MIDP, 21%). Despite conversions, intended MIDP was associated with reduced blood loss (P = .006) and length of stay (P = .04). Conversion was associated with a poor histologic grade and positive nodes. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 19 (95% CI, 14-47) months. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was performed increasingly in later study years and for patients with a higher Charlson–Age Comorbidity Index. Overall survival after ODP or intended MIDP was equivalent after adjusting for comorbidity and year of surgery (relative hazard, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.47-2.62]).

Conclusions and Relevance We detected no evidence that MIDP was inferior to ODP based on postoperative outcomes or overall survival. This conclusion was verified by propensity score analysis with adjustment for factors affecting selection of operative technique.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Propensity analysis based on a logistic regression model logarithm of the odds ratio (log OR) for attempting minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). A, Accrual to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and MIDP by study year. B, Propensity to perform MIDP relative to year 1 (2002) adjusted to a Charlson–Age Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 2. The OR for MIDP increased progressively from 2002 (year 1) to 2010 (year 9). C, Log OR for attempting MIDP at UPMC as a function of the CCI adjusted to year 2007. The OR for attempting MIDP increased across the range of CCIs from 0 to 9, indicating that patients with more medical comorbidities were more likely to undergo MIDP with time relative to ODP. Whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Median overall survival for all patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy and adjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Dotted lines indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Propensity score–adjusted overall survival analysis after open (ODP) and minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal carcinoma (relative hazard, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.47-2.62]; P = .80).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Cumulative hazard ratio of death from pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDC) as a function of time after surgical resection. The hazard ratio for PDC-related death is highest in the first 8 months and falls rapidly after 24 months despite the provision of adjuvant chemotherapy to 53 study patients (86%). Diagonal line represents a line of constant hazard, or unity.

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();