One Hundred Thirty Resections for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor: Evaluating the Impact of Minimally Invasive and Parenchyma-Sparing Techniques
- 352 Downloads
Increasingly, surgeons apply minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing techniques to the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these approaches on patient outcomes.
We retrospectively collected data on patients with PNET and compared perioperative and pathologic variables. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Factors influencing survival were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model.
One hundred thirty patients underwent resection for PNET. Traditional resections included 43 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 38 open distal pancreatectomies (DP), and four total pancreatectomies. Minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing resections included 25 laparoscopic DP, 11 central pancreatectomies, five enucleations, three partial pancreatectomies, and one laparoscopic-assisted PD. Compared to traditional resections, the minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing resections had shorter hospital stays. By univariate analysis of neuroendocrine carcinoma, liver metastases and positive resection margins correlated with poor survival. There was an increase in minimally invasive or parenchyma-sparing resections over the study period with no differences in morbidity, mortality, or survival.
In this series, there has been a significant increase in minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing techniques for PNET. This shift did not increase morbidity or compromise survival. In addition, minimally invasive and parenchyma-sparing operations yielded shorter hospital stays.
KeywordsPancreatic neuroendocrine tumor Pancreatectomy Minimally invasive Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing resection
This work was supported by the I.W. Foundation, The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and an institutional Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (T32 HL 007854-14).
- 6.Nissen NN, Kim AS, Yu R, Wolin EM, Friedman ML, Lo SK, Wachsman AM, Colquhoun SD. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: presentation, management, and outcomes. Am Surg 2009;10:1025–1029.Google Scholar
- 7.Scarpa A, Mantovani W, Capelli P, Beghelli S, Boninsegna L, Bettini R, Panzuto F, Pederzoli P, delle Fave G, Falconi M. Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients. Mod Pathol 2010;doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.58 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rindi G, Klöppel G, Alhman H, Caplin M, Couvelard A, de Herder WW, Eriksson B, Falchetti A, Falconi A, Komminoth P, Körner M, Lopes JM, McNicol AM, Nilsson O, Perren A, Scarpa A, Scoazec JY, Wiedenmann B. TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 2006;449:395–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Kooby DA, Hawkins WG, Schmidt CM, Weber SM, Bentrem DJ, Gillespie TW, Sellers JB, Merchant NB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC 3rd, Kim HJ, Ahmad S, Cho CS, Parikh AA, Chu CK, Hamilton NA, Doyle CJ, Pinchot S, Hayman A, McClaine R, Nakeeb A, Staley CA, McMasters KM, Lillemoe KD. A multicenter analysis of distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma: is laparoscopic resection appropriate? J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:779–785.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar