ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer earlier time to adjuvant chemotherapy but not improved survival in resected pancreatic cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma after the learning curve: a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- The Current Treatment Paradigm for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Barriers to Therapeutic Efficacy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Incidence and risk factors for post-operative mortality, hospitalization, and readmission rates following pancreatic cancer resection.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Article
- Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival following surgery for T4 colorectal cancer.BMC surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic surgery encompasses complex operations with significant potential morbidity. Greater experience in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has allowed resections to be performed laparoscopically and robotically. This study evaluates the impact of surgical approach in resected pancreatic cancer.
methodsThe National Cancer Data Base (2010-2012) was reviewed for patients with stages 1-3 resected pancreatic carcinoma. Open approaches were compared to MIS. A sub-analysis was then performed comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches.
resultsOf the 9047 patients evaluated, surgical approach was open in 7511 (83%), laparoscopic in 992 (11%), and robotic in 131 (1%). The laparoscopic and robotic conversion rate to open was 28% (n = 387) and 17% (n = 26), respectively. Compared to open, MIS was associated with more distal resections (13.5, 24.3%, respectively, p < 0.0001), shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (11.3, 9.5 days, respectively, p < 0.0001), more margin-negative resections (75, 79%, p = 0.038), and quicker time to initiation of chemotherapy (TTC) (59.1, 56.3 days, respectively, p = 0.0316). There was no difference in number of lymph nodes obtained based on surgical approach (p = 0.5385). When stratified by type of resection (head, distal, or total), MIS offered significantly shorter LOS in all types. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no survival benefit for any MIS approach relative to open (all, p > 0.05). When adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics, TTC was not an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.09, p = 0.084).
conclusionMIS appears to offer comparable surgical oncologic benefit with improved LOS and shorter TTC. This effect, however, was not associated with improved survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29101568What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.