Next Article in Journal
Cancer Classification at the Crossroads
Next Article in Special Issue
Decreased Activity of Circulating Butyrylcholinesterase in Blood Is an Independent Prognostic Marker in Pancreatic Cancer Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Betulinic Acid-Mediated Tuning of PERK/CHOP Signaling by Sp1 Inhibition as a Novel Therapeutic Strategy for Glioblastoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Potential of Exosomal microRNA-200b as Liquid Biopsy Marker in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/cancers12040982
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

by
Jaewoo Kwon
1,†,
Ki Byung Song
1,†,
Seo Young Park
2,
Dakyum Shin
1,
Sarang Hong
1,
Yejong Park
1,
Woohyung Lee
1,
Jae Hoon Lee
1,
Dae Wook Hwang
1 and
Song Cheol Kim
1,*
1
Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
2
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Jaewoo Kwon and Ki Byung Song contributed equally and should be considered as co-first authors.
Cancers 2020, 12(4), 982; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040982
Submission received: 13 March 2020 / Revised: 11 April 2020 / Accepted: 13 April 2020 / Published: 15 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

1. Introduction

Minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many surgical procedures across different specialties and is currently standard procedure for the resection of intraabdominal organs, including the stomach [1,2], gallbladder [3], spleen [4,5], colon [6,7], and kidney [8,9]. However, its use in pancreatic surgery has been limited because of the complexity of these operations. Recently, minimally invasive surgery for benign and malignant pancreatic tumors has gained wider acceptance and is attracting more research attention [10,11,12]. In addition, a Pan-European propensity score matched study was published that showed a comparable survival outcome when performing minimal invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer [13]. However, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), which includes laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD), remains limited by a lack of generalizability, and open surgery is preferred for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) due to concerns about adequate oncological outcomes and the potential for vessel resection. Recent studies have investigated LPD for PDAC [12,14]. Until now, however, no matched analyses have been conducted to analyze the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of MIPD versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for PDAC. The present retrospective study has compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between MIPD and OPD for PDAC using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients and Post-Surgical Monitoring

Data from patients treated by pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD or OPD) for PDAC between January 2011 and December 2017 at the Asan Medical Center were evaluated. MIPD was defined in this study as LPD or RPD. Patients who presented with benign lesions or periampullary malignancy other than PDAC were excluded from the study, as were patients presenting with other types of pancreatic cancer (adenosquamous carcinoma, colloid carcinoma, hepatoid carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, undifferentiated carcinoma, and undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells). Patient selection is summarized in Figure 1.
Data on eligible patients were obtained from electronic medical records and reviewed retrospectively. The following clinicopathological data were collected: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), preoperative biliary drainage, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) [15], surgical procedure, concurrent vessel resection, concurrent resection of other organs, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, year of surgery, operation time, postoperative complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, biliary stricture, reoperation history, 90 day mortality, postoperative hospital stay, adjuvant chemotherapy, interval between adjuvant treatment and surgery, pathological findings, tumor size, TNM stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage, 8th edition), overall survival, and disease-free survival. The resection margin status was categorized as R0 or R1. If the closest safe resection margin was < 1 mm, it was categorized as R1 [16]. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system [17]. Late complications were defined as complications that were found in outpatients after discharge. POPF was graded according to the definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), which was updated in 2016 [18]. Delayed gastric emptying and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage were diagnosed in accordance with ISGPS parameters [19,20]. Biliary stricture was defined as postoperative jaundice resulting in treatment with percutaneous biliary drainage, balloon cholangioplasty, and stent insertion. Postoperative surveillance with contrast-enhanced abdominoperineal computed tomography (CT) evaluation and CA19-9 level tests was conducted every 3 months for the first 2 years following surgery, and then every 6 months thereafter in all patients. Recurrence was diagnosed based on detection of new progressive lesions on abdominal CT and an increase in CA19-9 levels. When lesions signifying potential recurrent disease were detected, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and/or chest CT were performed along with biopsy to confirm the diagnosis if a differential diagnosis was required. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of surgery until death or the date of national insurance loss. The last follow-up was performed in March 2019. The retrospective cohort study design was approved by the institutional review board of the Asan Medical Center (approval number: 2019-0683).

2.2. Surgical Indications for MIPD in Patients with PDAC

From 2007 to 2017, 552 cases of MIPD for benign or malignant lesion were performed in our center by a total of five surgeons, each of whom performed at least 70 cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy per year [21]. MIPD for PDAC has been conducted since 2011, after an accumulation of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies for benign lesions that began in 2007 [21]. Patients diagnosed with resectable PDAC with preserved fat planes between the tumor and celiac axis, hepatic artery, and superior mesenteric artery, and without previous abdominal surgery were eligible for MIPD. If the lesion changed from locally advanced to resectable PDAC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the patient was also scheduled for MIPD. Prior consent for MIPD was obtained from all eligible patients.

2.3. Surgical Technique

2.3.1. Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

The patient was placed in a supine position, and an anti-Trendelenburg (10–30°) was used to expose the surgical field. Two monitors were placed on both sides of the patient. The surgeon and laparoscopist stood to the right of the patient, with the assistant positioned to the left. The surgeon’s right-hand port (12 mm) was inserted through the left side of the umbilicus; an additional four trocars were then placed (Figure 2).
After abdominal access was established, the greater omentum was divided using an energy device, and the right colon was separated and fully mobilized from the liver and duodenum. The retropancreatic superior mesenteric vein (SMV) was then exposed, and the right gastroepiploic vessels were transected. After removing soft tissue from around the SMV and superior mesenteric artery, each was hung with a vessel loop. The mobilization of the duodenum to the Treitz ligament was performed with traction of the duodenum by the surgical assistant. The stomach and duodenum were divided using an endoscopic linear stapler.
After cholecystectomy, dissection of the hepatoduodenal ligament and isolation of the common bile duct were performed. The right and left hepatic arteries were identified and isolated, and lymph node dissection was performed. The gastrohepatic ligament was opened to visualize the superior border of the pancreas and to identify the common hepatic artery. The right gastric artery and gastroduodenal artery were identified and transected using a Hem-o-lock clip. The pancreas was divided above the SMV using an energy device. After retracting the resected pancreas to the right side of the patient’s abdomen, the portal vein was identified and hung with a vessel loop. The jejunum was divided approximately 10–15 cm distal to the Treitz ligament with an endoscopic linear stapler. An energy device and endoscopic electrocautery were used to separate the remaining soft tissue and branches from the superior mesenteric artery between the uncinate process of the pancreas and the superior mesenteric artery to complete the resection. Pancreatojejunostomy was performed using a double-layered, end-to-side, duct-to-mucosa method by laparoscopic suture. A polyethylene internal stent was inserted into the pancreatic duct. End-to-side hepaticojejunostomy was performed using laparoscopic continuous suturing at the posterior wall and interrupted or continuous suturing at the anterior wall. Duodenojejunostomy or gastrojejunostomy with jejunojejunostomy was performed intracorporeally or extracorporeally via the specimen extraction site. Two or three closed suction drains were placed at the superior and inferior borders of the pancreatojejunostomy site.

2.3.2. Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

The patient was positioned as described for LPD. RPD was undertaken using one of two major surgical procedures. The first was LPD with robotic reconstruction, which was performed as per LPD to resect tumors. The surgeon’s positions and trocar locations (Figure 2A) were the same as for LPD. After the resection phase, the duct-to-mucosa (or dunking) pancreatojejunostomy and end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy reconstructions were performed using a robotic system. The surgeon’s two ports and the assistant port were replaced with a robotic 8 mm port that inserted into the robotic arm, followed by completely robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.
The second type of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was resection and anastomosis, performed by robotic system. Four robotic trocars, including a 12 mm camera port and two accessory laparoscopic ports for the assistant, were used during the operation (Figure 2B). The surgical procedure was the same as that in LPD, except that the robot arm was used. After hepaticojejunostomy, the specimen was extracted through the extended robot camera port site. Duodenojejunostomy or gastrojejunostomy with jejunojejunostomy was performed extracorporeally, in the same way as LPD.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Demographics, perioperative, pathological, and oncological outcomes were compared between the MIPD and OPD groups. Continuous variables were reported as the mean and standard deviation, or median and range as appropriate, and were compared using Student’s t-test. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, or linear-by-linear association test. All tests were two-sided and a p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Comparison of survival between the MIPD and OPD groups was performed with the log rank test. A PSM analysis was performed, wherein 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD to mitigate the limitations of a retrospective study and selection bias. PSM analysis reduces the impact of treatment-selection bias on the estimation of causal treatment effects in a retrospective cohort study. Propensity scores were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model with the OP type (MIPD vs. OPD) as the response variable. Two continuous variables including age and BMI, and ten categorical variables including sex, ASA score (grade I–III), CA19-9 range (normal or increased [>37 U/mL]), CEA range (normal or increased [>5 ng/mL]), preoperative drainage (yes or no), mGPS (0, 1, or 2), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no), concurrent vessel resection (yes or no), concurrent other organ resection (yes or no), and operation year (before or after 2015) were included as independent variables. Multiple imputations with m = 5 were performed, and the propensity score model was fitted separately for each of the five imputed (thus complete) datasets to account for gaps in the data for some of the independent variables. For each patient, the average of the five estimated propensity scores was calculated, and this averaged score was used for matching. This matching was performed at a ratio of 1:3 MIPD to OPD, using a width of 0.2 standard deviations of the logit of the estimated propensity score. After PSM, there was a difference in the pathological result, which also impacts on survival outcome, so PSM including pathological results was performed once again to confirm more clearly whether survival could be affected by the surgical method, even though this result is not statistically correct. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were analyzed for OS and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. A robust estimator was used to allow for clustering effects within matched stratum for inference based on Cox regression. The prognostic effects of MIPD were estimated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Statistical analyses were calculated and compared using SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and R 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Demographics Prior to PSM

Between January 2011 and December 2017, a total of 3059 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. Following exclusions, 1048 patients (652 male, 396 female) were enrolled in the study. Table 1 shows the demographics of the study cohort grouped by MIPD (n = 76, including 11 cases of RPD) and OPD (n = 972). Age, sex, BMI, ASA score, proportion of elevated CEA, proportion of mGPS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and concurrent resection of other organs did not differ significantly between the MIPD and OPD groups. Increased levels of CA19-9 were seen in 50.0% of the MIPD group and 65.7% of the OPD group (p = 0.017). The number of patients undergoing preoperative biliary drainage and concurrent vessel resection was higher in the OPD group than in the MIPD group (47.4% versus 62.0%, respectively; p = 0.016 and 15.8% versus 36.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). Among the 12 cases of concurrent vessel resection in the MIPD group, eight were portal vein or SMV wedge resection with primary closure, two were end-to-end resection with synthetic graft anastomosis, one was portal vein wedge resection with patching, and one case was right hepatic artery resection with non-anastomosis. Since 2015, 86.8% of patients underwent MIPD and 46.5% underwent OPD (p < 0.001).

3.2. Comparison of Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes in the MIPD and OPD Groups Prior to PSM

Table 2 shows the perioperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy in both groups. None of the patients who received MIPD had extracorporeal pancreaticojejunostomy or hepaticojejunostomy; one case required open conversion because of portal vein and right hepatic artery invasion. The mean follow-up period was 26.79 months (median, 20.47; range, 0.13–97.61 months). Operation time for MIPD and OPD showed a statistically significant difference (392 vs. 368 min, respectively; p = 0.043). Although overall complication rates and in-hospital complications showed no differences between the two groups, late complications were more frequent in the MIPD group (9.2% vs. 4.9% in the OPD group; p = 0.021). Clinically relevant POPF, delayed gastric emptying grade B or C, and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B or C did not vary significantly between the groups, but biliary stricture occurred more frequently after MIPD than OPD (5.3% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.006). No 90-day mortalities were observed in the MIPD group, but seven occurred in the OPD group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Four patients died as a result of disease progression with multiple metastases; three were discharged without complications, but death was confirmed through loss of national insurance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.2 vs. 15.0 days, respectively; p < 0.001). More MIPD patients than OPD patients received adjuvant treatments (80.3% vs. 68.1%, respectively; p = 0.001). The method of adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was similar between the two groups, but the proportion of gemcitabine-based regimens was higher in MIPD patients, and fluoropyrimidine was more common in OPD. The period from surgery to adjuvant treatment did not differ between the two groups.
Table 3 shows the pathological outcomes following MIPD and OPD. Tumor sizes were smaller in the MIPD group (2.7 vs. 3.1 cm in the OPD group; p = 0.019). The rate of perineural invasion was higher in the OPD group than in the MIPD group (69.7% vs. 87.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes were larger in the OPD than in the MIPD group (18.6 vs. 22.1, respectively; p = 0.006 and 1.5 vs. 2.0, respectively; p = 0.041); however, the positive lymph node ratios did not differ between the groups. No other factors showed a significant difference between the MIPD and OPD groups.
Figure 3 shows Kaplan–Meier survival curves for the MIPD and OPD groups. The median OS and DFS rates showed no significant differences between the two groups.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes in the MIPD and OPD Groups After PSM

Table 4 shows matched demographic data for the two groups; all variables were well matched.
Table 5 shows comparative data for perioperative outcomes between the two groups after matching. Operation times were shorter for OPD than MIPD (392 vs. 327 min, respectively; p < 0.001). As seen, prior to PSM matching, overall complication rates were similar, and the proportion of in-hospital and late complications did not differ between the two groups. The incidence of clinically relevant POPF, delayed gastric emptying grade B or C, and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B or C did not vary significantly between the matched groups. Biliary stricture and reoperation also showed no differences after PSM. Postoperative hospital stay following MIPD was shorter than following OPD (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, respectively; p < 0.040). More MIPD patients than OPD patients received adjuvant treatment, (80.8% vs. 59.8%, respectively; p = 0.002). The adjuvant regimen and the period from surgery to adjuvant treatment showed no differences between the two groups.
Table 6 summarizes the pathological results after PSM. Tumor sizes were similar between the two groups, and TNM stage, tumor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion did not vary significantly. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in MIPD group, but the difference was not statistically significant (18.9 vs. 21.3, respectively; p = 0.073). The rate of perineural invasion was higher in the OPD group than in the MIPD group (81.7% vs. 69.9%, respectively; p = 0.042).
The median OS and DFS were similar in the two groups (Figure 4). Estimated 1-, 2- year OS rate was 84.9% (95% CI, 77.1%–93.5%), 59.8% (95% CI, 48.3%–74.1%) in MIPD group and 79.4% (95% CI, 74.2%–84.9%), 54.0% (95% CI, 47.4%–61.6%) in OPD group. There was no difference in survival rate between two groups (p = 0.143).
Estimated 1-, 2- year DFS rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 45.4%–68.5%), 33.8% (95% CI, 23.8%–48.1%) in MIPD groups and 45.5%(95% CI, 39.1%–53.0%), 31.3% (95% CI, 23.8%–48.1%) in OPD group. No notable differences were seen in DFS between two groups (p = 0.278).

3.4. Multivariable Model of Prognostic Factors for OS and DFS After PSM

Differences in pathological results after PSM and survival risk factors were assessed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to confirm whether MIPD affected OS (Table 7) and DFS (Table 8) in 73 MIPD patients and 219 OPD patients after PSM. This analysis showed that MIPD did not affect OS (95% CI, 0.525–1.175; p = 0.240) or DFS (95% CI, 0.523–1.150; p = 0.206). Differentiation, perineural invasion and resection margin status were prognostic factors for OS, and N1 stage and differentiation were prognostic factors for DFS.

3.5. Comparative Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes Between Resectable MIPD and OPD Groups after PSM for Pathologic Outcome

OS and DFS were also compared between the MIPD and OPD groups after PSM for pathological outcomes because of differences in perineural invasion. In this analysis, 66 MIPD patients and 132 OPD patients were enrolled for PSM. Pathologic outcome including perineural invasion were well matched after pathological PSM (Table 9). There were no statistically significant differences in OS and DFS between the two groups (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

The development of MIPD was based on Gagner and Pomp’s original LPD description from 1994 [22]. Several studies from high-volume centers have reported that MIPD might be feasible and confer advantages over OPD for benign lesions and periampullary malignancy [23,24,25]. However, reservations concerning the safety of MIPD persist as the majority of hospitals performing MIPD were low-volume centers, and its use has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality [26,27,28]. In addition, MIPD for PDAC is yet to show generalizable indication because of the complex relationships between major surrounding structures, inflammatory changes around the head of the pancreas, and invasion of major vessels. Stauffer et al. reported that 24.1% of LPD cases were converted to OPD after vein resection or adherence to the underlying vasculature resulting from desmoplastic or pancreatitis reactions [14]. In the current study, the OPD group presented with a higher mean level of CA19-9 and higher rates of preoperative drainage and concurrent vessel resection than the MIPD group. Differences in tumor size, T stage, proportion of perineural invasion, and number of positive lymph nodes also suggest selective indications for MIPD for PDAC. These findings suggest that MIPD is being performed in patients with less inflammation and less aggressive tumors than those undergoing OPD. Although our center has gradually expanded the indications of MIPD for PDAC, OPD remains the standard for pancreatoduodenectomy, with MIPD selection based on limited medical indications and surgeon preference. The current study therefore matched preoperative findings using PSM, and subsequently compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes between the MIPD and OPD groups.
Perioperative outcomes showed that there were differences in the operation time in the non-corrected data and PSM data. This result suggests that regardless of disease severity, MIPD is a more lengthy procedure because of technical difficulties; this result is also similar to the findings of previous reports [14,23,29,30]. However, despite the longer operation time of MIPD, overall complication and in-hospital / late complication rates did not differ between the two groups. Stauffer et al. have previously reported that the rate of postoperative complications did not differ between LDP and OPD for PDAC [14]. This result was also similar in a previous randomized clinical trial of LPD for periampullary disease [31,32].
In the current study, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was shorter after MIPD than OPD. Several reports have suggested that LPD for PDAC results in faster recovery times and an earlier return to activity than OPD [12,14]. Two randomized clinical trials of LPD also reported that laparoscopy offered a shorter hospital stay [31,32]. This can be explained by the lower levels of postoperative inflammation after laparoscopic surgery [33]. Other studies have reported that minimally invasive surgery minimized surgical stress in a cohort of patients where the absence or reduction of postoperative pain was essential for postoperative mobilization [34,35]. Randomized controlled trials exploring laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer have reported a positive impact on postoperative restitution with earlier recovery of bowel function [36,37]. Less postoperative inflammation, a reduction in postoperative pain, and increased mobilization after minimally invasive surgery could explain the shorter hospital stays observed in the MIPD group of the current study.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is a critical component of treatment for patients with PDAC. In the main analysis and after PSM, adjuvant treatment was administered more frequently after MIPD. Croome et al. reported that a significantly higher proportion of patients undergoing OPD received delayed adjuvant treatment or did not receive adjuvant treatment; they also reported that LPD has certain advantages over OPD, such as shorter hospital stays and faster recovery times, allowing patients to recover and pursue adjuvant treatment options sooner [12]. Peng et al. reported that LPD patients had much shorter intervals between surgery and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy than OPD patients [38]. Several studies have also found that minimally invasive surgery is associated with earlier initiation of chemotherapy, increased compliance, and improved survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer [39,40,41]. If laparoscopic surgery has these positive effects in other cancer patients, it may also improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. However, additional studies are required to evaluate the specific effects of MIPD on chemotherapy compliance among PDAC patients in the future.
Although there was no statistically significant difference, the lower mean number of harvested lymph nodes during MIPD compared with OPD may invite criticism that MIPD is not suitable for oncological pancreatic surgery, even when assuming that the extent of MIPD is similar to OPD. This result is similar to the result about PSM study of minimal invasive distal pancreatectomy for PDAC that the number of harvest LN and positive LN is less than that of open distal pancreatectomy [13]. However, Tomlinson et al. [42] reported that examination of 15 lymph nodes is optimal for the accurate staging of PDAC after PD. There have been several reports that extended lymphadenectomy does not yield significant survival benefits compared with standard resection in pancreatic head cancer [43,44,45]. In the current study, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes after MIPD was > 18. In addition, the average lymph node ratio and resection margin did not differ between the MIPD and OPD groups, and lymph node harvest showed no statistically significant difference compared with OPD in most studies published on LPD for PDAC [12,14,29,46]. The current study therefore suggests that lymph node harvest in itself is not oncologically problematic when performing MIPD for PDAC.
OS and DFS were not affected by the surgical approach in the current study. Chen et al. have recently produced a meta-analysis of studies of LPD for PDAC; the oncologic outcomes of LPD were seen to be equivalent to that of OPD, and LPD appeared promising in terms of long-term survival [47]. Croome et al. also reported longer DFS for LPD than OPD for PDAC [12]. There are, however, a number of reasons why these studies may have presented better survival outcomes relating to MIPD. First, the selection bias for implementing LPD was not considered even though postoperative pathologic outcomes were not statistically different. There was a trend toward smaller tumor size in the LPD group, although it did not reach a statistically significant difference in the meta-analysis [47]. This suggests that there is a tendency to perform MIPD in cases of less invasive PDAC. The current study implemented PSM to correct this limitation. Second, OPD was performed by different surgeons from those undertaking LPD in some studies [12]. This may affect the pathologic outcomes that affect survival rate. By contrast, the current study design meant that the same surgeons performed MIPD and OPD.
In the PSM analysis of the current study, the survival rate following MIPD was comparable to that of OPD. However, PSM analysis alone is not sufficient to confirm that there is no difference in survival between MIPD and OPD due to pathological differences between groups, such as perineural invasion. Differences in pathology were also found in PSM study of minimal invasive distal pancreatectomy for PDAC [13]. Because of these limitations, this study attempted to determine whether the surgical procedure affected survival regardless of pathology outcomes using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model for patients selected by PSM. Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes between the MIPD and OPD groups after PSM for pathologic outcome was performed, even though PSM analysis to include pathological results is statistically inadequate because the surgery itself may alter pathology. These results indicated that OS and DFS were not affected by the surgical procedure.
The current study has some limitations. Data were collected retrospectively, and the number of MIPD cases is low compared with OPD. Inherent selection bias may have occurred with patients slated for MIPD, as these subjects are more likely to be judged by the surgeon as having favorable outcomes, even though data was PSM-corrected. On this basis, the current results cannot be considered to be highly reliable. Therefore, randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the oncologic outcomes and survival rate associated with MIPD in the treatment of PDAC. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to report a large-scale PSM analysis of MIPD for PDAC, and the results can therefore be considered to be meaningful.

5. Conclusions

This study of patients with PDAC demonstrates that MIPD resulted in shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncologic outcomes to OPD. Although future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings, MIPD can be considered as a safe, oncologically appropriate approach to the treatment of PDAC, and may be cautiously considered in selected PDAC patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C.K.; Data curation, K.K., D.S., S.H. and Y.P.; Formal analysis, S.Y.P.; Funding acquisition, S.C.K.; Investigation, K.B.S.; Methodology, J.K. and K.B.S.; Project administration, J.K.; Supervision, K.B.S., D.W.H. and S.C.K.; Validation, K.B.S., W.L., J.H.L. and D.W.H.; Writing – original draft, J.K.; Writing – review & editing, S.C.K. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea: HI14C2640.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare no competing interests in relation to this study. This study was supported by a grant from the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant no. HI14C2640).

Conflicts of Interest

The all authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, K.; Pan, Y.; Cai, J.-Q.; Xu, X.-W.; Wu, D.; Mou, Y.-P. Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes compared with open surgery. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 15867–15878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Haverkamp, L.; Brenkman, H.J.F.; Seesing, M.F.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Henegouwen, M.I.V.B.; Luyer, M.D.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Van Lanschot, J.; De Steur, W.O.; et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial). BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Peters, J.H.; Ellison, E.C.; Innes, J.T.; Liss, J.L.; Nichols, K.E.; Lomano, J.M.; Roby, S.R.; Front, M.E.; Carey, L.C. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis of 100 initial patients. Ann. Surg. 1991, 213, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chen, J.; Ma, R.; Yang, S.; Lin, S.; He, S.; Cai, X. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open splenectomy for nontraumatic diseases: A meta-analysis. Chin. Med. J. 2014, 127, 2504–2510. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Wu, P.C.; Langerman, A.; Ryan, C.W.; Hart, J.; Swiger, S.; Posner, M.C.; Santaniello, J.; Esposito, T.J.; A Luchette, F.; Atkian, D.K.; et al. Surgical treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the imatinib (STI-571) era. Surgery 2003, 134, 656–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, X.; Zhong, M.-E.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, G.-N.; Xu, L.; Lu, J.; Lin, G.-L.; Qiu, H.; Wu, B. Laparoscopic vs open resection of pT4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis of 94 patients. Color. Dis. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Vennix, S.; Pelzers, L.; Bouvy, N.; Beets, G.L.; Pierie, J.-P.; Wiggers, T.; Breukink, S.O. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, CD005200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Liu, G.; Ma, Y.; Wang, S.; Han, X.; Gao, D. Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transl. Oncol. 2017, 10, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, P.; Xu, W.; Li, H.; Ren, T.; Ni, S.; Ren, M. Laparoscopic Nephrectomy versus Open Nephrectomy for Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Raoof, M.; Ituarte, P.H.G.; Woo, Y.; Warner, S.G.; Singh, G.; Fong, Y.; Melstrom, L. Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection. BJS 2018, 105, 578–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wellner, U.F.; Lapshyn, H.; Bartsch, D.K.; Mintziras, I.; Hopt, U.T.; Wittel, U.; Kramling, H.J.; Preissinger-Heinzel, H.; Anthuber, M.; Geissler, B.; et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy—A propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2016, 32, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Croome, K.P.; Farnell, M.; Que, F.G.; Reid-Lombardo, K.; Truty, M.J.; Nagorney, D.M.; Kendrick, M.L. Total Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2014, 260, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. 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. Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA). Ann. Surg. 2019, 269, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Stauffer, J.A.; Coppola, A.; Villacreses, D.; Mody, K.; Johnson, E.; Li, Z.; Asbun, H.J. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Long-term results at a single institution. Surg. Endosc. 2016, 31, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McMillan, D.C. The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score: A decade of experience in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2013, 39, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schlitter, A.M.; Esposito, I. Definition of Microscopic Tumor Clearance (R0) in Pancreatic Cancer Resections. Cancers 2010, 2, 2001–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.-A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hackert, T.; Hinz, U.; Pausch, T.; Fesenbeck, I.; Strobel, O.; Schneider, L.; Fritz, S.; Büchler, M.W. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: We need to redefine grades B and C. Surgery 2016, 159, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wente, M.N.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Gouma, D.J.; Izbicki, J.R.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G.; Traverso, L.W.; et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: A suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007, 142, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wente, M.; Veit, J.A.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Gouma, D.J.; Izbicki, J.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G.; et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)–An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 2007, 142, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Song, K.B.; Kim, S.C.; Lee, W.; Hwang, D.W.; Lee, J.H.; Kwon, J.; Park, Y.; Lee, S.J.; Park, G. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors: Lessons learned from 500 consecutive patients in a single center. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 1343–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gagner, M.; Pomp, A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg. Endosc. 1994, 8, 408–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chen, K.; Liu, X.-L.; Pan, Y.; Maher, H.; Wang, X.-F. Expanding laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy to pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy: Major findings based on systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018, 18, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Torphy, R.J.; Friedman, C.; Halpern, A.; Chapman, B.C.; Ahrendt, S.S.; McCarter, M.M.; Edil, B.H.; Schulick, R.D.; Gleisner, A. Comparing Short-term and Oncologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy Across Low and High Volume Centers. Ann. Surg. 2019, 270, 1147–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Delitto, D.; Luckhurst, C.M.; Black, B.S.; Beck, J.L.; George, T.J.; Sarosi, G.A.; Thomas, R.M.; Trevino, J.G.; Behrns, K.E.; Hughes, S.J. Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes Following Selective Application of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Malignancies. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2016, 20, 1343–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Adam, M.A.; Choudhury, K.; Dinan, M.A.; Reed, S.D.; Scheri, R.P.; Blazer, D.; Roman, S.A.; Sosa, J.A. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Cancer. Ann. Surg. 2015, 262, 1–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, Z.; Yin, Z.; Hang, Z.; Ji, G.; Feng, Q.; Zhao, Q. A systemic review and an updated meta-analysis: Minimally invasive vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Hilst, J.; De Rooij, T.; Bosscha, K.; Brinkman, D.J.; Van Dieren, S.; Dijkgraaf, M.G.; Gerhards, M.F.; De Hingh, I.H.; Karsten, T.M.; Lips, D.J.; et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): A multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 4, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Song, K.B.; Kim, S.C.; Hwang, D.W.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, D.J.; Lee, J.W.; Park, K.; Lee, Y.J. Matched Case-Control Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Periampullary Tumors. Ann. Surg. 2015, 262, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kuesters, S.; Chikhladze, S.; Makowiec, F.; Sick, O.; Fichtner-Feigl, S.; Hopt, U.T.; Wittel, U.A.; Chikhladzen, S. Oncological outcome of laparoscopically assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma in a retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 55, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Palanivelu, C.; Senthilnathan, P.; Sabnis, S.C.; Babu, N.S.; Gurumurthy, S.S.; Vijai, N.A.; Nalankilli, V.P.; Raj, P.P.; Parthasarathy, R.; Rajapandian, S. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. BJS 2017, 104, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poves, I.; Burdio, F.; Morató, O.; Iglesias, M.; Radosevic, A.; Ilzarbe, L.; Visa, L.; Grande, L. Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2018, 268, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hiki, N.; Shimizu, N.; Yamaguchi, H.; Imamura, K.; Kami, K.; Kubota, K.; Kaminishi, M. Manipulation of the small intestine as a cause of the increased inflammatory response after open compared with laparoscopic surgery. BJS 2006, 93, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Xie, M.; Qin, H.; Luo, Q.; He, X.; Lan, P.; Lian, L. Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection in Octogenarian Patients. Med. 2015, 94, e1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhu, Q.; Mao, Z.; Jin, J.; Deng, Y.; Zheng, M.; Yu, B. The Safety of CO2 Pneumoperitoneum for Elderly Patients During Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutaneous Tech. 2010, 20, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Veldkamp, R.; Kuhry, E.; Hop, W.C.J.; Jeekel, J.; Kazemier, G.; Bonjer, H.J.; Haglind, E.; Påhlman, L.; Cuesta, M.A.; Msika, S.; et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: Short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005, 6, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lacy, A.; García-Valdecasas, J.C.; Delgado, S.; Castells, A.; Taurá, P.; Piqué, J.M.; Visa, J. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: A randomised trial. Lancet 2002, 359, 2224–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peng, L.; Zhou, Z.; Cao, Z.; Wu, W.; Xiao, W.; Cao, J. Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2019, 29, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bin Jung, Y.; Kang, J.; Park, E.J.; Baik, S.H.; Lee, K.Y. Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2016, 26, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chun, K.H.; Bae, B.-N.; An, H.; Jeong, H.; Cho, H.; Gwak, G.; Yang, K.H.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, Y.D. Comparison of Compliance of Adjuvant Chemotherapy between Laparoscopic and Open Surgery in Patients With Colon Cancer. Ann. Coloproctol. 2014, 30, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Malietzis, G.; Mughal, A.; Currie, A.C.; Anyamene, N.; Kennedy, R.H.; Athanasiou, T.; Jenkins, J.T. Factors Implicated for Delay of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 3793–3802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Tomlinson, J.S.; Jain, S.; Bentrem, D.J.; Sekeris, E.G.; Maggard-Gibbons, M.A.; Hines, O.J.; Reber, H.A.; Ko, C.Y. Accuracy of Staging Node-Negative Pancreas Cancer. Arch. Surg. 2007, 142, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Tol, J.A.; Gouma, D.J.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Montorsi, M.; Adham, M.; Andren-Sandberg, A.; Asbun, H.J.; Bockhorn, M.; Büchler, M.W.; et al. Definition of a standard lymphadenectomy in surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A consensus statement by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2014, 156, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jang, J.-Y.; Kang, M.; Heo, J.; Choi, S.H.; Choi, D.W.; Park, S.-J.; Han, S.-S.; Yoon, D.S.; Yu, H.C.; Kang, K.J.; et al. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Outcomes of Standard Resection and Extended Resection, Including Dissection of the Nerve Plexus and Various Lymph Nodes, in Patients With Pancreatic Head Cancer. Ann. Surg. 2014, 259, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Lahat, G.; Lubezky, N.; Gerstenhaber, F.; Nizri, E.; Gysi, M.; Rozenek, M.; Goichman, Y.; Nachmany, I.; Nakache, R.; Wolf, I.; et al. Number of evaluated lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes, lymph node ratio, and log odds evaluation in early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Numerology or valid indicators of patient outcome? World J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 14, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Dokmak, S.; Ftériche, F.S.; Aussilhou, B.; Bensafta, Y.; Levy, P.; Ruszniewski, P.; Belghiti, J.; Sauvanet, A. Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Should Not Be Routine for Resection of Periampullary Tumors. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 220, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, K.; Zhou, Y.; Jin, W.; Zhu, Q.; Lu, C.; Niu, N.; Wang, Y.; Mou, Y.; Chen, Z. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Oncologic outcomes and long-term survival. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 1948–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 12 00982 g001 550
Figure 1. Patient flow diagram. We conducted a retrospective review of 1048 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after excluding 2011 patients based on the criteria listed in the figure. Of these, 76 patients underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy and 972 patients underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. After propensity score matching, 73 MIPD patients and 219 OPD patients were compared.
Figure 1. Patient flow diagram. We conducted a retrospective review of 1048 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after excluding 2011 patients based on the criteria listed in the figure. Of these, 76 patients underwent minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy and 972 patients underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. After propensity score matching, 73 MIPD patients and 219 OPD patients were compared.
Cancers 12 00982 g001
Cancers 12 00982 g002 550
Figure 2. Trocar locations during MIPD. (A) Port locations for LPD and RPD performed during laparoscopic resection and anastomosis by robot instrument. (B) Port locations for RPD performed by robotic resection and anastomosis.
Figure 2. Trocar locations during MIPD. (A) Port locations for LPD and RPD performed during laparoscopic resection and anastomosis by robot instrument. (B) Port locations for RPD performed by robotic resection and anastomosis.
Cancers 12 00982 g002
Cancers 12 00982 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 76) and OPD group (n = 972). (A) The median OS was 27.6 months, and estimated 1-, 2-, 5- year OS were 84.2%, 58.7%, and 43.8%, respectively in the MIPD group, and 24.5 months and 79.3%, 51.2%, and 24.6% respectively, in the OPD group. Log rank p-value for this result was 0.079. (B) The median DFS was 13.4 months, and estimated 1-, 2-,5- year DFS were 54.8%, 32.5%, and 25.0%, respectively in the MIPD group, and 10.7 months and 45.6%, 28.3%, and 19.9%, respectively in the OPD group. Log rank p-value for this result was 0.151.
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 76) and OPD group (n = 972). (A) The median OS was 27.6 months, and estimated 1-, 2-, 5- year OS were 84.2%, 58.7%, and 43.8%, respectively in the MIPD group, and 24.5 months and 79.3%, 51.2%, and 24.6% respectively, in the OPD group. Log rank p-value for this result was 0.079. (B) The median DFS was 13.4 months, and estimated 1-, 2-,5- year DFS were 54.8%, 32.5%, and 25.0%, respectively in the MIPD group, and 10.7 months and 45.6%, 28.3%, and 19.9%, respectively in the OPD group. Log rank p-value for this result was 0.151.
Cancers 12 00982 g003
Cancers 12 00982 g004 550
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 73) and OPD group (n = 219) after propensity score matching. (A) Median OS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS were 27.6 months and 84.9%, 59.8%, and 44.7% in the MIPD group, and 26.5 months, 79.4%, 54.0%, and 26.7% in the OPD group, respectively (p = 0.143). (B) Median DFS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS were 13.7 months and 55.7%, 33.8%, and 26.1% in the MIPD group and 10.7 months and 45.5%, 31.3%, and 23.2% in the ODP group, respectively (p = 0.278).
Figure 4. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 73) and OPD group (n = 219) after propensity score matching. (A) Median OS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS were 27.6 months and 84.9%, 59.8%, and 44.7% in the MIPD group, and 26.5 months, 79.4%, 54.0%, and 26.7% in the OPD group, respectively (p = 0.143). (B) Median DFS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS were 13.7 months and 55.7%, 33.8%, and 26.1% in the MIPD group and 10.7 months and 45.5%, 31.3%, and 23.2% in the ODP group, respectively (p = 0.278).
Cancers 12 00982 g004
Cancers 12 00982 g005 550
Figure 5. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 66) and OPD group (n = 132) after propensity score matching with pathologic finding. (A) Median OS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS were 31.9 months and 84.8%, 64.1%, and 47.0% in the MIPD group, and 25.3 months, 80.3%, 54.4%, and 29.6% in the OPD group, respectively (p = 0.177). (B) Median DFS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS were 14.1 months and 57.1%, 36.0%, and 26.6% in the MIPD group and 10.8 months and 46.3%, 28.9%, and 22.8% in the ODP group, respectively (p = 0.166).
Figure 5. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of MIPD group (n = 66) and OPD group (n = 132) after propensity score matching with pathologic finding. (A) Median OS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS were 31.9 months and 84.8%, 64.1%, and 47.0% in the MIPD group, and 25.3 months, 80.3%, 54.4%, and 29.6% in the OPD group, respectively (p = 0.177). (B) Median DFS and estimated 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS were 14.1 months and 57.1%, 36.0%, and 26.6% in the MIPD group and 10.8 months and 46.3%, 28.9%, and 22.8% in the ODP group, respectively (p = 0.166).
Cancers 12 00982 g005
Table
Table 1. Patient demographics.
Table 1. Patient demographics.
Variables MIPD
(n = 76)		OPD
(n = 972)		P-Value
Mean age, years (±SD) 62.2 (±10.4)61.9 (±9.8)0.836
Sex, n (%)Female34 (44.7)362 (37.2)0.153
Male42 (55.3)610 (62.8)
Mean BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 22.7 (±2.8)22.8 (±2.94)0.832
ASA score, n (%)I8 (10.5)59 (6.1)0.059
II60 (78.9)858 (88.3)
III8 (10.5)55 (5.7)
CA19-9, n (%)Normal34 (44.7)311 (32.0)0.017
Increased38 (50.0)639 (65.7)
NA4 (5.3)22 (2.3)
CEA, n (%)Normal53 (69.7)747 (76.9)> 0.999
Increased13 (17.1)178 (18.3)
NA10 (13.2)47 (4.8)
Preoperative biliary drainage, n (%)Yes36 (47.4)603 (62.0)0.016
No40 (52.6)369 (38.0)
mGPS, n (%)056 (73.7)700 (72.0)0.459
1–217 (22.4)164 (16.9)
NA3 (3.9)108 (11.1)
Neoadjuvant, n (%)Yes6 (7.9)90 (9.3)0.849
No70 (92.1)882 (90.7)
Concurrent vessel resection, n (%)Vein11 (14.5)303 (31.2)< 0.001
Artery1 (1.3)35 (3.6)
Artery and vein0 (0)21 (2.2)
No64 (84.2)613 (63.1)
Concurrent resection of another organ, n (%)Yes0 (0)29 (3.0)0.244
No76 (100)943 (97.0)
Year of surgery, n (%)< 201510 (13.2)520 (53.5)< 0.001
≥ 201566 (86.8)452 (46.5)
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; ENBD, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage; ERBD, endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; NA, not available; OPD, open pancreato-duodenectomy; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; SD, standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Perioperative outcome according to method of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Table 2. Perioperative outcome according to method of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Variables MIPD
(n = 76)		OPD
(n = 972)		p-Value
Mean operation time, minutes (±SD) 392 (±96)368 (±99)0.043
Overall complications, n (%) 23 (30.3)349 (35.9)0.322
In-hospital complications grade +, n (%)No54 (71.1)659 (67.8)0.832
Grade I–II18 (23.7)275 (28.3)
Grade III–V4 (5.3)38 (3.9)
Late complications grade +, n (%)No69 (90.8)925 (95.2)0.021
Grade I–II1 (1.3)26 (2.7)
Grade III–V6 (7.9)21 (2.2)
POPF ++, n (%) +No or75 (98.7)931 (95.8)0.176
biochemical leakage
Grade B or C1 (1.3)41 (4.2)
Delayed gastric emptying B or C, n (%) *Yes2 (2.6)30 (3.1)>0.999
No74 (97.4)942 (96.9)
Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B or C, n (%) **Yes2 (2.6)11 (1.1)0.242
No74 (97.4)961 (98.9)
Biliary stricture during follow-up periods, n, (%)Yes4 (5.3)7 (0.7)0.006
No72 (94.7)965 (99.3)
Reoperation, n, (%)Yes2 (2.6)18 (1.9)0.651
No74 (97.4)954 (98.1)
90 day mortality, n (%)Yes0 (0)7 (0.7)0.589
No76 (100)967 (99.3)
Hospital stay after operation, days (±SD)Mean12.2 (±5.5)15.0 (±8.6)<0.001
AdjuvantNo15 (19.7)310 (31.9)0.001
CTx44 (57.9)499 (51.3)
CCRTx14 (18.4)162 (16.7)
RTx3 (3.9)1 (0.1)
Adjuvant regimenFluorpyrimidine17 (22.4)303 (31.2)0.113
Gemcitabine based41 (53.9)270 (27.8)
FOLFIRINOX0 (0.0)11 (1.1)
NA18 (23.7)388 (39.9)
Interval between surgery and adjuvant treatment, days (±SD)Mean47.0 (±16.2)47.4 (±17.6)0.860
+ Complication grade was classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. ++ POPF was graded according to the definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), updated in 2016. * Delayed gastric emptying defined in accordance with ISGPS specifications. ** Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage defined in accordance with ISGPS specifications. CTx, chemotherapy; CCRTx, concurrent chemoradiation therapy; FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin); MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; NA, not available; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula; RTx, radiation therapy.
Table
Table 3. Pathologic outcome according to surgical method of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Table 3. Pathologic outcome according to surgical method of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Variables MIPD
(n = 76)		OPD
(n = 972)		p-Value
Mean pathologic tumor size, cm (±SD) 2.7 (±0.8)3.1 (±1.0)0.019
T stage (AJCC 8th), n (%)T117 (22.4)137 (14.1)0.011
T255 (72.4)706 (72.6)
T34 (5.3)122 (12.6)
T40 (0)7 (0.7)
N stage (AJCC 8th), n (%)N030 (39.5)373 (38.4)0.330
N137 (48.7)411 (42.3)
N29 (11.8)188 (19.3)
Staging (AJCC 8th), + n (%)IA11 (14.5)85 (8.7)0.330
IB16 (21.1)257 (26.4)
IIA3 (3.9)31 (3.2)
IIB36 (47.4)395 (40.6)
III9 (11.8)182 (18.7)
IV1 (1.3)22 (2.3)
Differentiation WD6 (7.9)113 (11.6)0.798
MD59 (77.6)721 (74.2)
PD7 (9.2)106 (10.9)
NA4 (5.3)32 (3.3)
Lymphovascular invasion, n (%)Yes50 (65.8)608 (62.6)0.574
No26 (34.2)364 (37.4)
Perineural invasion, n (%)Yes53 (69.7)852 (87.7)<0.001
No23 (30.3)120 (12.3)
Mean number of harvested lymph nodes, n (±SD) 18.6 (±9.9)22.1 (±10.6)0.006
Mean number of positive lymph nodes, n (±SD) 1.5 (±1.9)2.0 (±2.8)0.041
Mean positive lymph node ratio, %, (±SD) 9.8 (±15.1)9.8 (±13.4)0.976
Resection margin ++, n (%)R057 (75.0)696 (71.6)0.526
R119 (25.0)276 (28.4)
+ TNM stage was graded according to American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage, 8th edition. ++ If closest safe resection margin was < 1 mm, it was categorized as R1. MD, moderately differentiated; MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; NA, not available; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; PD, poorly differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Table
Table 4. Demographics of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Table 4. Demographics of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Variables MIPD
(n = 73)		OPD
(n = 219)		SMD
Mean age, years 62.463.30.091
Sex, n (%)Female32 (43.8)105 (47.9)0.083
Male41 (56.2)114 (52.1)
Mean BMI, kg/m2 22.7922.850.021
ASA score, n (%)I7 (9.6)23 (10.5)0.054
II59 (80.8)178 (81.3)
III7 (9.6)18 (8.2)
CA19-9, n (%)Normal33 (45.2)102 (46.6)0.010
Increased36 (49.3) 109 (49.8)
NA4 (5.5)8 (3.7)
CEA, n (%)Normal50 (68.5)166 (75.8)0.040
Increased13 (17.8)39 (17.8)
NA10 (13.7)14 (6.4)
Preoperative biliary drainage, n (%)Yes 35 (47.9)109 (49.8) 0.037
No38 (52.1)110 (50.2)
mGPS, n (%)055 (75.3)165 (75.3)0.009
1–215 (20.5)44 (20.1)
NA3 (4.1)10 (4.6)
Neoadjuvant, n (%)Yes6 (8.2)15 (6.8)0.052
No67 (91.8)204 (93.2)
Concurrent vessel resection, n (%)Yes12 (16.4)39 (17.8)0.036
No61 (83.6)180 (82.2)
Concurrent resection of another organ, n (%)Yes0 (0)0 (0)<0.001
No73 (100)219 (100)
Year of surgery, n (%)<201510 (13.7)31 (14.2)0.013
≥201563 (86.3)188 (85.8)
BMI, body mass index; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; NA, not available; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; SMD, standardized mean difference.
Table
Table 5. Perioperative outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Table 5. Perioperative outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Variables MIPD
(n = 73)		OPD
(n = 219)		p-Value #
Mean operation time, minutes 392327<0.001
Overall complications, n, (%) 23 (31.5)91 (41.6)0.128
In-hospital complications grade +, n (%)No51 (69.9)142 (64.8)0.781
Grade I–II18 (23.7)68 (31.1)
Grade III–V4 (5.3)9 (4.1)
Late complications grade +, n (%)No66 (90.4)202 (92.2)0.202
Grade I–II1 (1.4)10 (4.6)
Grade III–V6 (8.2)7 (3.2)
POPF ++, n (%)No or Biochemical leakage72 (98.6)214 (97.7)0.640
Grade B–C1 (1.4)
Delayed gastric emptying B or C, n (%) *Yes2 (2.7)6 (2.7)>0.999
Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B or C, n (%) **Yes2 (2.7)1 (0.5)0.140
Biliary stricture during follow-up periods, n, (%)Yes4 (5.5)4 (1.8)0.110
Reoperation, n (%)Yes2 (2.7)4 (1.8)0.630
Mean hospital stay after surgery, days 12.414.20.040
Adjuvant treatmentYes59 (80.8)128 (59.8)0.002
Adjuvant regimenFluoropyrimidine16 (21.9)47 (21.5)0.191
Gemcitabine based40 (54.8)74 (33.8)
or FOLFIRINOX
NA17 (23.3)98 (44.7)
Mean interval between surgery and adjuvant treatment (±SD) 47.3 (±16.1)46.6(±15.8)0.740
+ Complication grade was classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.++ POPF was graded according to the definition updated in 2016 by the International Study Group Pancreatic Fistula. * Delayed gastric emptying defined in accordance with ISGPS specifications. ** Post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage defined in accordance with ISGPS specifications. # Calculated using a generalized estimating equation with exchangeable correlation structure within matched stratum. FOLFIRINOX, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; POPF, postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Table
Table 6. Pathologic outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Table 6. Pathologic outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching.
Variables MIPD
(n = 73)		OPD
(n = 219)		p-Value *
Mean pathologic tumor size, cm 2.752.840.49
T stage (AJCC 8th), n (%)T115 (20.5)37 (16.9)0.415
T254 (74.0)166 (75.8)
T34 (5.5)16 (7.3)
T40 (0.0)0 (0.0)
N stage (AJCC 8th), n (%)N029 (39.7)103 (47.0)0.573
N135 (47.9)76 (34.7)
N29 (12.3)40 (18.3)
Staging (AJCC 8th) +, n (%)IA10 (13.7)28 (12.8)0.444
IB16 (21.9)70 (32.0)
IIA3 (4.1)6 (2.7)
IIB34 (46.6)74 (33.8)
III9 (12.3)36 (16.4)
IV1 (1.4)5 (2.3)
Differentiation WD6 (8.2)28 (12.8)0.286
MD58 (79.5)168 (76.7)
PD6 (8.2)16 (7.3)
NA3 (4.1)7 (3.2)
Lymphovascular invasion, n (%)Yes48 (65.8)127 (58.0)0.243
No25 (34.2)92 (42.0)
Perineural invasion, n (%)Yes51 (69.9)179 (81.7)0.042
No22 (30.1)40 (18.3)
Mean number of harvested lymph nodes, n 18.921.30.073
Mean number of positive lymph nodes, n 1.521.940.82
Mean positive lymph node ratio, % 9.529.170.86
Resection margin ++, n (%)R056 (76.7)164 (74.9)0.76
R117 (23.3)55 (25.1)
+ TNM stage was graded according to American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage, 8th edition. ++ If closest safe resection margin was < 1 mm, it was categorized as R1. * Calculated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) with exchangeable correlation structure within matched stratum. For ordered outcome, Heagerty and Zeger [1996, Journal of the American Statistical Society 91, 1024-1036] GEE approach was used for clustered ordinal measurements. MD, moderately differentiated; MIPD, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy; NA, not available; OPD, open pancreatoduodenectomy; PD, poorly differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Table
Table 7. Multivariable model of risk factors for overall survival after propensity score matching.
Table 7. Multivariable model of risk factors for overall survival after propensity score matching.
VariablesHR95% CIp-Value
Type of surgeryOPDRef-0.24
MIPD0.7860.525–1.175
Size 1.0920.847–1.4090.496
T stage (AJCC 8th)T1Ref-0.452
T21.3970.776–2.5140.265
T31.8810.662–5.3410.236
N stage (AJCC 8th)N0Ref-0.125
N11.5010.972–2.3170.067
N21.9580.980–3.9130.057
M stage (AJCC 8th)M11.2290.682–2.2140.493
Differentiation WDRef-<0.001
MD1.8261.085–3.074
PD4.9622.664–9.245
Lymphovascular invasionNoRef-0.122
Yes1.4110.912–2.184
Perineural invasionNoRef-0.026
Yes1.8331.074–3.128
Number of harvested lymph nodes 10.978–1.0220.991
Number of positive lymph nodes 1.0460.924–1.1830.478
Positive lymph node ratio 0.9940.966–1.0220.657
Resection marginR0Ref-0.001
R11.7931.268–2.536
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; MD, moderately differentiated; NA, not available; PD, poorly differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Table
Table 8. Multivariable model of risk factors for disease-free survival after propensity score matching.
Table 8. Multivariable model of risk factors for disease-free survival after propensity score matching.
VariablesHR95% CIp-Value
Type of surgeryOPDRef-0.206
MIPD0.7760.523–1.150
Size 1.1940.957–1.4890.116
T stage (AJCC 8th)T1Ref-0.909
T20.9210.557–1.5230.748
T30.7930.281–2.2420.662
N stage (AJCC 8th)N0Ref-0.075
N11.6741.061–2.6410.027
N21.9010.706–5.1160.204
M stage (AJCC 8th)M11.2090.420–3.4820.725
Differentiation WDRef-<0.001
MD1.3570.911–2.0230.133
PD3.2931.838–5.899<0.001
Lymphovascular invasionNoRef-0.21
Yes1.2990.863–1.954
Perineural invasionNoRef-0.067
Yes1.4870.973–2.272
Number of harvested lymph nodes 1.0020.984–1.0200.853
Number of positive lymph nodes 1.0440.860–1.2670.661
Positive lymph node ratio 0.9940.972–1.0160.595
Resection marginR0Ref-0.211
R11.2550.879–1.793
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; MD, moderately differentiated; NA, not available; PD, poorly differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Table
Table 9. Demographics and pathologic outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching with pathologic finding.
Table 9. Demographics and pathologic outcome of MIPD and OPD after propensity score matching with pathologic finding.
Variables MIPD
(n = 66)		OPD
(n = 132)		SMD
Mean age, years 62.162.50.035
Sex, n (%)Female29 (43.9)57 (43.2)0.015
Mean BMI, kg/m2 22.9122.830.028
ASA score, n (%)I5 (7.6)10 (7.6)0.027
II55 (83.3)111 (84.1)
III6 (9.1)11 (8.3)
CA19-9, n (%)Increased33 (50.0)67 (50.1)0.018
CEA, n (%)Increased12 (18.2)25 (18.9)0.043
Preoperative biliary drainage, n (%)Yes 33 (50.0)60 (45.5)0.091
mGPS, n (%)1–212 (18.2)28 (21.2)0.087
Neoadjuvant, n (%)Yes6 (9.1)10 (7.6)0.055
Concurrent vessel resection, n (%)Yes12 (18.2)25 (18.9)0.019
Concurrent resection of another organ, n (%)Yes0 (0)0 (0)<0.001
Year of surgery, n (%)≥201557 (86.4)111 (84.1)0.064
Mean pathologic tumor size, cmMean2.782.770.01
Staging (AJCC 8th)+, n (%)IA9 (13.6)20 (15.2)0.15
IB16 (24.2)30 (22.7)
IIA3 (4.5)5 (3.8)
IIB28 (42.4)61 (46.2)
III9 (13.6)13 (9.8)
IV1 (1.5)3 (2.3)
Differentiation WD6 (9.1)15 (11.4)0.158
MD54 (81.8)101 (76.5)
PD3 (4.5)10 (7.6)
NA3 (4.5)6 (4.5)
Lymphovascular invasion, n (%)Yes41 (62.1)83 (62.9)0.016
Perineural invasion, n (%)Yes49 (74.2)93 (70.5)0.085
Mean number of harvested lymph nodes, n 19.4200.066
Mean number of positive lymph nodes, n 1.531.550.007
Mean positive lymph node ratio, % 8.298.460.016
Resection margin++, n (%)R116 (24.2)35 (26.5)0.052
+ TNM stage was graded according to American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage, 8th edition. ++ If closest safe resection margin was < 1 mm, it was categorized as R1. BMI, body mass index; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; NA, not available; SMD, standardized mean difference.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kwon, J.; Song, K.B.; Park, S.Y.; Shin, D.; Hong, S.; Park, Y.; Lee, W.; Lee, J.H.; Hwang, D.W.; Kim, S.C. Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Cancers 2020, 12, 982. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040982

AMA Style

Kwon J, Song KB, Park SY, Shin D, Hong S, Park Y, Lee W, Lee JH, Hwang DW, Kim SC. Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Cancers. 2020; 12(4):982. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040982

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kwon, Jaewoo, Ki Byung Song, Seo Young Park, Dakyum Shin, Sarang Hong, Yejong Park, Woohyung Lee, Jae Hoon Lee, Dae Wook Hwang, and Song Cheol Kim. 2020. "Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis" Cancers 12, no. 4: 982. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040982

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop