Top

Published in:

01-01-2021 | Pancreatectomy

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective comparison between minimally invasive and open approach using propensity score weighting

Authors: Stefano Partelli, Valentina Andreasi, Paola Maria Vittoria Rancoita, Eduardo Perez-Sanchez, Francesca Muffatti, Gianpaolo Balzano, Stefano Crippa, Clelia Di Serio, Massimo Falconi

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNEN) are ideal entities for minimally invasive surgery. The advantage of the laparoscopic approach in terms of complications, length of stay (LOS) and cosmetic results has been previously demonstrated. However, scarce data are available on long-term oncological outcomes. Aim of this study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes, pathological findings and long-term oncological results of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for PanNEN.

Methods

Patients who underwent ODP or MIDP for nonfunctioning PanNEN (NF-PanNEN) were retrospectively analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score was performed to compare the outcomes of MIDP and ODP.

Results

Overall, 124 patients were included in the study: 84 underwent OPD, whereas 40 were submitted to MIDP. The rate of high-grade postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIDP group (p = 0.005, grade of complication with highest estimated probability 0 vs 2) and the postoperative LOS was significantly shorter after MIDP (p < 0.001, estimated days 8 versus 10). The number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) in the ODP group was significantly higher (p = 0.0036, estimated number of ELN 13 vs 10). Similar disease-free survival and overall survival were reported for the two groups (p = 0.234 and p = 0.666, respectively).

Conclusions

Although MIDP for PanNEN seems to be associated with a lower number of ELN, long-term survival is not influenced by the type of surgical approach. MIDP is advantageous in terms of postoperative complications and LOS, but prospective studies are needed to confirm the overall oncological quality of resection in this group of neoplasms.

Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, Zhao B, Zhou S, Xu Y, Shih T, Yao JC (2017) Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol 3(10):1335–1342CrossRef

Haugvik SP, Marangos IP, Rosok BI, Pomianowska E, Gladhaug IP, Mathisen O, Edwin B (2013) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. World J Surg 37(3):582–590CrossRef

Fernandez-Cruz L, Blanco L, Cosa R, Rendon H (2008) Is laparoscopic resection adequate in patients with neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors? World J Surg 32(5):904–917CrossRef

Drymousis P, Raptis DA, Spalding D, Fernandez-Cruz L, Menon D, Breitenstein S, Davidson B, Frilling A (2014) Laparoscopic versus open pancreas resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 16(5):397–406CrossRef

Han SH, Han IW, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Han S, You YH (2018) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a large single-center study. Surg Endosc 32(1):443–449CrossRef

Xourafas D, Tavakkoli A, Clancy TE, Ashley SW (2015) Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open? J Gastrointest Surg 19(5):831–840CrossRef

Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Dunnegan DL, Meininger TA (1994) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in the porcine model. Surg Endosc 8(1):57–60 (discussion 60–51)CrossRef

Edwin B, Sahakyan MA, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG, Braga M, Fabre JM, Fernandez-Cruz L, Gayet B, Kim SC, Khatkov IE (2017) Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc 31(5):2023–2041CrossRef

Casadei R, Ricci C, Pacilio CA, Ingaldi C, Taffurelli G, Minni F (2018) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: which factors are related to open conversion? Lessons learned from 68 consecutive procedures in a high-volume pancreatic center. Surg Endosc 32(9):3839–3845CrossRef

10.

Braga M, Pecorelli N, Ferrari D, Balzano G, Zuliani W, Castoldi R (2015) Results of 100 consecutive laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: postoperative outcome, cost-benefit analysis, and quality of life assessment. Surg Endosc 29(7):1871–1878CrossRef

11.

van Hilst J, Korrel M, de Rooij T, Lof S, Busch OR, Groot Koerkamp B, Kooby DA, van Dieren S, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG (2019) Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45(5):719–727CrossRef

12.

de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Abu Hilal M, Kendrick ML, Busch OR, Besselink MG (2016) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(4):227–238CrossRef

13.

de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H, Boerma D, van den Boezem P, Daams F, van Dam R, Dejong C, van Duyn E, Dijkgraaf M et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(1):2–9CrossRef

14.

van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Abu Hilal M, Asbun HJ, Barkun J, Boggi U, Busch OR, Conlon KC, Dijkgraaf MG, Han HS et al (2017) Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford) 19(3):190–204CrossRef

15.

de Rooij T, Besselink MG, Shamali A, Butturini G, Busch OR, Edwin B, Troisi R, Fernandez-Cruz L, Dagher I, Bassi C et al (2016) Pan-European survey on the implementation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery with emphasis on cancer. HPB (Oxford) 18(2):170–176CrossRef

16.

Abu Hilal M, Richardson JR, de Rooij T, Dimovska E, Al-Saati H, Besselink MG (2016) Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: technique and results. Surg Endosc 30(9):3830–3838CrossRef

17.

Sahakyan MA, Kazaryan AM, Rawashdeh M, Fuks D, Shmavonyan M, Haugvik SP, Labori KJ, Buanes T, Rosok BI, Ignjatovic D et al (2016) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: results of a multicenter cohort study on 196 patients. Surg Endosc 30(8):3409–3418CrossRef

18.

van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S, Rawashdeh M, Aleotti F, Al-Sarireh B, Alseidi A, Ateeb Z, Balzano G, Berrevoet F et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-european propensity score matched study. Ann Surg 269(1):10–17CrossRef

19.

Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Mody K, Asbun HJ (2016) Laparoscopic Versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 40(6):1477–1484CrossRef

20.

Tamburrino D, Partelli S, Renzi C, Crippa S, Muffatti F, Perali C, Parisi A, Randolph J, Fusai GK, Cirocchi R et al (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis on laparoscopic pancreatic resections for neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs). Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11(1):65–73CrossRef

21.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2014) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 12(12):1495–1499CrossRef

22.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRef

23.

Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, Sarr M, Abu Hilal M, Adham M, Allen P, Andersson R, Asbun HJ, Besselink MG et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery 161(3):584–591CrossRef

24.

Rindi G, Kloppel G, Alhman H, Caplin M, Couvelard A, de Herder WW, Erikssson B, Falchetti A, Falconi M, Komminoth P et al (2006) TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 449(4):395–401CrossRef

25.

Lloyd RV, Osamura RY, Kloppel GRJ (2017) WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs, 4th edn. IARC Press, Lyon, France, p 10

26.

Schemper M, Smith TL (1996) A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 17(4):343–346CrossRef

27.

Austin PC, Stuart EA (2015) Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 34(28):3661–3679CrossRef

28.

Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Ryan TJ, Cleary PD, McNeil BJ (2001) Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 54(4):387–398CrossRef

29.

https://www.R-project.org/

30.

Lopez CL, Albers MB, Bollmann C, Manoharan J, Waldmann J, Fendrich V, Bartsch DK (2016) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg 40(7):1729–1736CrossRef

31.

Mintziras I, Keck T, Werner J, Fichtner-Feigl S, Wittel U, Senninger N, Vowinkel T, Koninger J, Anthuber M, Geissler B et al (2019) Implementation of current ENETS guidelines for surgery of small (%3c/=2 cm) pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in the german surgical community: an analysis of the prospective DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas Registry. World J Surg 43(1):175–182CrossRef

32.

Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, Caplin M, Kos-Kudla B, Kwekkeboom D, Rindi G, Kloppel G et al (2016) ENETS Consensus guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 103(2):153–171CrossRef

33.

Partelli S, Bartsch DK, Capdevila J, Chen J, Knigge U, Niederle B, Nieveen van Dijkum EJM, Pape UF, Pascher A, Ramage J et al (2017) ENETS Consensus guidelines for standard of care in neuroendocrine tumours: surgery for small intestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology 105(3):255–265CrossRef

Title: Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective comparison between minimally invasive and open approach using propensity score weighting
Authors: Stefano Partelli
Valentina Andreasi
Paola Maria Vittoria Rancoita
Eduardo Perez-Sanchez
Francesca Muffatti
Gianpaolo Balzano
Stefano Crippa
Clelia Di Serio
Massimo Falconi
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Pancreatectomy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07375-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine neoplasms: a retrospective comparison between minimally invasive and open approach using propensity score weighting

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Overlap method versus functional method for esophagojejunal reconstruction using totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy

Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Trends and risk factors for 30-day readmissions in patients with acute cholangitis: analysis from the national readmission database

Single-site laparoscopic burnia for inguinal hernias in girls: comparison with open repair

Benchmarking patient satisfaction scores in a colorectal patient population

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing simethicone, N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint for visualization in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy