Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma

Deepa Magge, William Gooding, Haroon Choudry, Jennifer Steve, Jennifer Steel, Amer Zureikat, Alyssa Krasinskas, Mustapha Daouadi, Kenneth K.W. Lee, Steven J. Hughes, Herbert J. Zeh, A. James Moser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

81 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)525-531
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Surgery
Volume148
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pancreatectomy
Adenocarcinoma
Pancreatic Ductal Carcinoma
Survival
Comorbidity
Pancreatic Fistula
Propensity Score
Selection Bias
Multicenter Studies
Disease Progression
Length of Stay
Body Mass Index

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Magge, D., Gooding, W., Choudry, H., Steve, J., Steel, J., Zureikat, A., ... James Moser, A. (2013). Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surgery, 148(6), 525-531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673

Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. / Magge, Deepa; Gooding, William; Choudry, Haroon; Steve, Jennifer; Steel, Jennifer; Zureikat, Amer; Krasinskas, Alyssa; Daouadi, Mustapha; Lee, Kenneth K.W.; Hughes, Steven J.; Zeh, Herbert J.; James Moser, A.

In: JAMA Surgery, Vol. 148, No. 6, 01.06.2013, p. 525-531.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Magge, D, Gooding, W, Choudry, H, Steve, J, Steel, J, Zureikat, A, Krasinskas, A, Daouadi, M, Lee, KKW, Hughes, SJ, Zeh, HJ & James Moser, A 2013, 'Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma', JAMA Surgery, vol. 148, no. 6, pp. 525-531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673
Magge, Deepa ; Gooding, William ; Choudry, Haroon ; Steve, Jennifer ; Steel, Jennifer ; Zureikat, Amer ; Krasinskas, Alyssa ; Daouadi, Mustapha ; Lee, Kenneth K.W. ; Hughes, Steven J. ; Zeh, Herbert J. ; James Moser, A. / Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma. In: JAMA Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 148, No. 6. pp. 525-531.
@article{d7a19752eb554d2eb46363546b14c35a,
title = "Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Deepa Magge and William Gooding and Haroon Choudry and Jennifer Steve and Jennifer Steel and Amer Zureikat and Alyssa Krasinskas and Mustapha Daouadi and Lee, {Kenneth K.W.} and Hughes, {Steven J.} and Zeh, {Herbert J.} and {James Moser}, A.",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "148",
pages = "525--531",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma

AU - Magge, Deepa

AU - Gooding, William

AU - Choudry, Haroon

AU - Steve, Jennifer

AU - Steel, Jennifer

AU - Zureikat, Amer

AU - Krasinskas, Alyssa

AU - Daouadi, Mustapha

AU - Lee, Kenneth K.W.

AU - Hughes, Steven J.

AU - Zeh, Herbert J.

AU - James Moser, A.

PY - 2013/6/1

Y1 - 2013/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879350364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879350364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673

DO - 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1673

M3 - Article

C2 - 23426503

AN - SCOPUS:84879350364

VL - 148

SP - 525

EP - 531

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 6

ER -