Comparison of central and extended left pancreatectomy for lesions of the pancreatic neck.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy (CP) is a parenchyma-sparing alternative to extended left pancreatectomy (ELP) for tumors of the pancreatic neck. We compared short- and long-term outcomes for the two approaches. METHODS: Patients who underwent CP or ELP from 2000-2007 for neoplasms of the neck were identified. Charts were reviewed for patient, treatment, and outcome data. Long-term and quality-of-life (QoL) data were gathered through Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved telephone interviews and questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, and QLQ-PAN26. RESULTS: 31 patients were identified; 13 underwent CP and 18 underwent ELP. Median follow-up was 29 months (range 5-90). Groups did not differ in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, or preexisting diabetes mellitus (DM). CP patients had less gland resected (5.7 +/- 2.1 cm versus 10.8 +/- 2.8 cm) and lower postoperative mean blood glucose levels (120 +/- 15 mg/dl versus 136 +/- 24 mg/dl). CP patients experienced more complications (92% versus 39%), but no significant difference in major complications (38%, CP versus 17%, ELP; P = 0.17) or hospital stay (9 +/- 3 days, CP versus 7.5 +/- 4 days, ELP). There was one perioperative death in the CP group, unrelated to surgical technique. Questionnaire analysis showed no differences in functional or symptom scales. New-onset exocrine insufficiency was not significantly different between the groups (10%, CP versus 27%, ELP; P = 0.62), but the ELP group had a higher rate of new-onset DM (57% versus 11%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: CP is associated with more complications than ELP, but no difference in long-term QoL. Due to the lower incidence of postoperative DM, CP can be recommended for healthy patients with indolent tumors of the pancreatic neck

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both. SEARCH METHODS: We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status.. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal associ

Relevance of Ki-67 antigen expression and K-ras mutation in colorectal liver metastases

Aims: The liver is a frequent site of metastases from colorectal cancer. While these lesions are potentially amenable to surgical resection, they are usually very aggressive, and recurrence is frequent. Mutations of the proto-oncogene K-ras are thought to impart a strong growth signal to tumour cells and are closely associated with the development of malignancies of the colon and rectum. Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer have notably elevated proliferative rates. The present study was performed to investigate the relationship between proliferation or K-ras mutation and prognosis following curative resection of colorectal liver metastases. Methods: Colorectal liver metastases from 41 patients undergoing curative hepatic resection were examined for proliferation status and presence of K-ras mutations. The proliferative activity was assessed by Ki-67 immuno-histochemistry. DNA from the same tissue samples was screened for point mutations in codon 12 of the K-ras gene using a novel microplate-based allelic-specific hybridization assay. Ki-67 scores and K-ras status were then related with patient survival as determined through retrospective analysis. Results. Median survival was 40 months. Patients with high Ki-67 scores (≥50%) had significantly shorter median survival compared with those with low scores (30 vs 44 months, log-rank P=0.02). A high Ki-67 score was an independent negative prognostic factor by multivariate regression analysis (relative risk = 3.04, P=0.036). K-ras point mutations were detected in 6/41 patients (15%), but mutational status did not correlate with Ki-67 score or survival. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the tumour proliferative index is a useful predictor of aggressive tumour behaviour and an indicator of patient survival. The presence of K-ras mutations does not appear to correlate with tumour proliferation status or patient survival