Lauren M. Postlewait

A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy

Objectives: Limited data exist comparing robotic and open approaches to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We performed a multicenter comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic PD (RPD) and open PD (OPD). Methods: Perioperative data for patients who underwent postlearning curve PD at 8 centers (8/2011–1/2015) were assessed. Univariate analyses of clinicopathologic and treatment factors were performed, and multivariable models were constructed to determine associations of operative approach (RPD or OPD) with perioperative outcomes. Results: Of the 1028 patients, 211 (20.5%) underwent RPD (4.7% conversions) and 817 (79.5%) underwent OPD. As compared with OPD, RPD patients had higher body mass index, rates of prior abdominal surgery, and softer pancreatic remnants, whereas OPD patients had a higher percentage of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cases, and greater proportion of nondilated (<3 mm) pancreatic ducts. On multivariable analysis, as compared with OPD, RPD was associated with longer operative times [mean difference = 75.4 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.5–133.3, P = 0.01], reduced blood loss (mean difference = −181 mL, 95% CI −355–(−7.7), P = 0.04) and reductions in major complications (odds ratio = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47–0.85, P = 0.003). No associations were demonstrated between operative approach and 90-day mortality, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula and wound infection, length of stay, or 90-day readmission. In the subset of 522 (51%) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, operative approach was not a significant independent predictor of margin status or suboptimal lymphadenectomy (<12 lymph nodes harvested). Conclusions: Postlearning curve RPD can be performed with similar perioperative outcomes achieved with OPD. Further studies of cost, quality of life, and long-term oncologic outcomes are needed.

Association of Preoperative Risk Factors With Malignancy in Pancreatic Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms: A Multicenter Study

Importance Pancreatic mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) harbor malignant potential, and current guidelines recommend resection. However, data are limited on preoperative risk factors for malignancy (adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia) occurring in the setting of an MCN. Objectives To examine the preoperative risk factors for malignancy in resected MCNs and to assess outcomes of MCN-associated adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants Patients who underwent pancreatic resection of MCNs at the 8 academic centers of the Central Pancreas Consortium from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2014, were retrospectively identified. Preoperative factors of patients with and without malignant tumors were compared. Survival analyses were conducted for patients with adenocarcinoma. Main Outcomes and Measures Binary logistic regression models were used to determine the association of preoperative factors with the presence of MCN-associated malignancy. Results A total of 1667 patients underwent resection of pancreatic cystic lesions, and 349 (20.9%) had an MCN (310 women [88.8%]; mean (SD) age, 53.3 [14.7] years). Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.72; 95% CI, 1.21-11.44; P = .02), pancreatic head and neck location (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 1.43-10.81; P = .01), increased radiographic size of the MCN (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.27; P < .001), presence of a solid component or mural nodule (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.95-10.57; P < .001), and duct dilation (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 1.63-10.64; P = .003) were independently associated with malignancy. Malignancy was not associated with presence of radiographic septations or preoperative cyst fluid analysis (carcinoembryonic antigen, amylase, or mucin presence). The median serum CA19-9 level for patients with malignant neoplasms was 210 vs 15 U/mL for those without (P = .001). In the 44 patients with adenocarcinoma, 41 (93.2%) had lymph nodes harvested, with nodal metastases in only 14 (34.1%). Median follow-up for patients with adenocarcinoma was 27 months. Adenocarcinoma recurred in 11 patients (25%), with a 64% recurrence-free survival and 59% overall survival at 3 years. Conclusions and Relevance Adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia is present in 14.9% of resected pancreatic MCNs for which risks include male sex, pancreatic head and neck location, larger MCN, solid component or mural nodule, and duct dilation. Mucinous cystic neoplasm–associated adenocarcinoma appears to have decreased nodal involvement at the time of resection and increased survival compared with typical pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Indications for resection of MCNs should be revisited.

The importance of surgical margins in gastric cancer.

Interpretation and management of the surgical margin is paramount to the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma. Although in early‐stage disease, a microscopically positive margin may be associated with poor outcomes, in later stages, it does not persist as an independent poor prognostic factor but rather is likely a marker of other adverse pathologic characteristics that ultimately determine outcomes. Thus, the decision to extend a resection to achieve a negative margin should be deliberate and individualized. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:277–282.

Curative surgical resection of adrenocortical carcinoma: Determining long-term outcome based on conditional disease-free probability

Objective: To evaluate conditional disease-free survival (CDFS) for patients who underwent curative intent surgery for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). Background: ACC is a rare but aggressive tumor. Survival estimates are usually reported as survival from the time of surgery. CDFS estimates may be more clinically relevant by accounting for the changing likelihood of disease-free survival (DFS) according to time elapsed after surgery. Methods: CDFS was assessed using a multi-institutional cohort of patients. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate factors associated with DFS. Three-year CDFS (CDFS3) estimates at “x” year after surgery were calculated as follows: CDFS3 = DFS(x+3)/DFS(x). Results: One hundred ninety-two patients were included in the study cohort; median patient age was 52 years. On presentation, 36% of patients had a functional tumor and median size was 11.5 cm. Most patients underwent R0 resection (75%) and 9% had N1 disease. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS was 59%, 34%, and 22%, respectively. Using CDFS estimates, the probability of remaining disease free for an additional 3 years given that the patient had survived without disease at 1, 3, and 5 years, was 43%, 53%, and 70%, respectively. Patients with less favorable prognosis at baseline demonstrated the greatest increase in CDFS3 over time (eg, capsular invasion: 28%–88%, &Dgr;60% vs no capsular invasion: 51%–87%, &Dgr;36%). Conclusions: DFS estimates for patients with ACC improved dramatically over time, in particular among patients with initial worse prognoses. CDFS estimates may provide more clinically relevant information about the changing likelihood of DFS over time.

The relationship of blood transfusion with peri-operative and long-term outcomes after major hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study of 456 patients

BACKGROUND Data on prognostic implications of peri-operative blood transfusion around resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) are conflicting. This retrospective study assesses the association of transfusion with complications and disease-specific survival (DSS). METHODS Major hepatectomies for CRLM from 2000 to 2010 at three institutions were included. Transfusion was analyzed based on timing and volume. RESULTS Of 456 patients, 140 (30.7%) received transfusions. Transfusion was associated with extended hepatectomy (28.6 vs 18.4%; p = 0.020), tumor size (5.7 vs 4.2 cm; p < 0.001), and operative blood loss (917 vs 390 mL; p < 0.001). Transfusion was independently associated with major complications (OR 2.61; 95% CI: 1.53-4.44; p < 0.001). Transfusion at any time was not associated with DSS; however, patients who specifically received blood post-operatively had reduced DSS (37.4 vs 42.7 months; p = 0.044). Increased volume of transfusion (≥3 units) was also associated with shortened DSS (Total: 37.4 vs 41.5 months, p = 0.018; Post-operative: 27.2 vs 40.3 months, p = 0.015). On multivariate analysis, however, transfusion was not independently associated with worsened DSS, regardless of timing and volume. CONCLUSION Transfusion with major hepatectomy for colorectal cancer metastases is independently associated with increased complications but not disease-specific survival. Judicious use of transfusion per a blood utilization protocol in the peri-operative period is warranted.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: safe and reasonable?

As a result of technological advances during the past two decades, surgeons now use minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to pancreatic resection more frequently, yet the role of these approaches for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resections remains uncertain, given the aggressive nature of this malignancy. Although there are no controlled trials comparing MIS technique to open surgical technique, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is performed with increasing frequency. Data from retrospective studies suggest that perioperative complication profiles between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are similar, with perhaps lower blood loss and fewer wound infections in the MIS group. Concerning oncologic outcomes, there appear to be no differences in the rate of achieving negative margins or in the number of lymph nodes (LNs) resected when compared to open surgery. There are limited recurrence and survival data on laparoscopic compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but in the few studies that assess long term outcomes, recurrence rates and survival outcomes appear similar. Recent studies show that though laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy entails a greater operative cost, the associated shorter length of hospital stay leads to decreased overall cost compared to open procedures. Multiple new technologies are emerging to improve resection of pancreatic cancer. Robotic pancreatectomy is feasible, but there are limited data on robotic resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and outcomes appear similar to laparoscopic approaches. Additionally fluorescence-guided surgery represents a new technology on the horizon that could improve oncologic outcomes after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, though published data thus far are limited to animal models. Overall, MIS distal pancreatectomy appears to be a safe and reasonable approach to treating selected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, though additional studies of long-term oncologic outcomes are merited. We review existing data on MIS distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

An assessment of feeding jejunostomy tube placement at the time of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma: A seven‐institution analysis of 837 patients from the U.S. gastric cancer collaborative

Jejunostomy feeding tubes (J‐tubes) are often placed during resection for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Their effect on postoperative complications and receipt of adjuvant therapy is unclear.

The importance of the proximal resection margin distance for proximal gastric adenocarcinoma: A multi-institutional study of the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative

A 5 cm margin is advocated for distal gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). The optimal proximal resection margin (PM) length for proximal GAC is not established.

Neuroendocrine liver metastasis: The chance to be cured after liver surgery

Neuroendocrine liver metastasis tumors (NELM) are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with varied histologic features and a wide range of clinical behaviors. We aimed to identify the fraction of patients cured after liver surgery for NELM.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Preoperative factors that predict lymph node metastases to guide operative strategy.

Enucleation and anatomic resection (central, distal, or pancreaticoduodenectomy) are surgical options for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Depending on nodal‐status, enucleation alone may not be oncologically appropriate. Preoperative factors predictive of nodal‐involvement are not well defined.