Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers

IMPORTANCE Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.EXPOSURES The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The learning curvewas assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C.RESULTS From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated.CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P &lt;0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P &lt;0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P &lt;0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.</p

Pathological Complete Response in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma After Preoperative Chemotherapy

Importance: Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma, leading to pathological complete response (pCR) in a small subset of patients. However, multicenter studies with in-depth data about pCR are lacking. Objective: To investigate the incidence, outcome, and risk factors of pCR after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational, international, multicenter cohort study assessed all consecutive patients with pathology-proven localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after 2 or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) in 19 centers from 8 countries (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018). Data collection was performed from February 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022, and analyses from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Median follow-up was 19 months. Exposures: Preoperative chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) followed by resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of pCR (defined as absence of vital tumor cells in the sampled pancreas specimen after resection), its association with OS from surgery, and factors associated with pCR. Factors associated with overall survival (OS) and pCR were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively. Results: Overall, 1758 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [9] years; 879 [50.0%] male) were studied. The rate of pCR was 4.8% (n = 85), and pCR was associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.83). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 95%, 82%, and 63% in patients with pCR vs 80%, 46%, and 30% in patients without pCR, respectively (P &lt; .001). Factors associated with pCR included preoperative multiagent chemotherapy other than (m)FOLFIRINOX ([modified] leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.87), preoperative conventional radiotherapy (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.00-4.10), preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91; 95% CI, 4.17-19.05), radiologic response (OR, 13.00; 95% CI, 7.02-24.08), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.79-7.89). Conclusions and Relevance: This international, retrospective cohort study found that pCR occurred in 4.8% of patients with resected localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Although pCR does not reflect cure, it is associated with improved OS, with a doubled 5-year OS of 63% compared with 30% in patients without pCR. Factors associated with pCR related to preoperative chemo(radio)therapy regimens and anatomical and biological disease response features may have implications for treatment strategies that require validation in prospective studies because they may not universally apply to all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.</p

Pathological Complete Response in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma After Preoperative Chemotherapy

Importance: Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma, leading to pathological complete response (pCR) in a small subset of patients. However, multicenter studies with in-depth data about pCR are lacking. Objective: To investigate the incidence, outcome, and risk factors of pCR after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational, international, multicenter cohort study assessed all consecutive patients with pathology-proven localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after 2 or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) in 19 centers from 8 countries (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018). Data collection was performed from February 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022, and analyses from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Median follow-up was 19 months. Exposures: Preoperative chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) followed by resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of pCR (defined as absence of vital tumor cells in the sampled pancreas specimen after resection), its association with OS from surgery, and factors associated with pCR. Factors associated with overall survival (OS) and pCR were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively. Results: Overall, 1758 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [9] years; 879 [50.0%] male) were studied. The rate of pCR was 4.8% (n = 85), and pCR was associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.83). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 95%, 82%, and 63% in patients with pCR vs 80%, 46%, and 30% in patients without pCR, respectively (P &lt; .001). Factors associated with pCR included preoperative multiagent chemotherapy other than (m)FOLFIRINOX ([modified] leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.87), preoperative conventional radiotherapy (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.00-4.10), preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91; 95% CI, 4.17-19.05), radiologic response (OR, 13.00; 95% CI, 7.02-24.08), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.79-7.89). Conclusions and Relevance: This international, retrospective cohort study found that pCR occurred in 4.8% of patients with resected localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Although pCR does not reflect cure, it is associated with improved OS, with a doubled 5-year OS of 63% compared with 30% in patients without pCR. Factors associated with pCR related to preoperative chemo(radio)therapy regimens and anatomical and biological disease response features may have implications for treatment strategies that require validation in prospective studies because they may not universally apply to all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.</p

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p