No study has shown the oncologic non-inferiority of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic cancer (PC).
This is a single institution propensity score matched study comparing RPD and ODP for resectable PC, based on factors predictive of R1 resection (≤ 1 mm). Only patients operated on after completion of the learning curve in both procedures and for whom circumferential margins were assessed according to the Leeds pathology protocol were included. The primary study endpoint was the rate of R1 resection. Secondary study endpoints were as follows: number of examined lymph nodes (N), rate of perioperative transfusions, percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapies, occurrence of local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and sample size calculation for randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Factors associated with R1 resection were tumor diameter, number of positive N, N ratio, logarithm odds of positive N, and duodenal infiltration. The matching process identified 20 RPDs and 24 OPDs. All RPDs were completed robotically. R1 resection was identified in 11 RPDs (55.0%) and in 10 OPDs (41.7%) (p = 0.38). There was no difference in the rate of R1 at each margin as well as in the proportion of patients with multiple R1 margins. RPD and OPD were also equivalent with respect to all secondary study endpoints, with a trend towards lower rate of blood transfusions in RPD. Based on the figures presented herein, a non-inferiority RCT comparing RPD and OPD having the rate of R1 resection as the primary study endpoint requires 3355 pairs.
RPD and OPD achieved the same rate of R1 resections in resectable PC. RPD was also non-inferior to OPD with respect to all secondary study endpoints. Because of the high number of patients required to run a RCT, further assessment of RPD for PC would require the implementation of an international registry.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Montagnini AL, Røsok BI, Asbun HJ, Barkun J, Besselink MG, Boggi U, Conlon KC, Fingerhut A, Han HS, Hansen PD, Hogg ME, Kendrick ML, Palanivelu C, Shrikhande SV, Wakabayashi G, Zeh H, Vollmer CM, Kooby DA (2017) Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection. HPB 9:182–189
Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amorese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925
Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, Miccoli M, Costa F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Boggi U (2016) The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 33:299–307
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Menonna F, Perrone VG, Brozzetti S, Boggi U (2016) Indications, technique, and results of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Updates Surg 68:295–305
Boggi U, Napoli N, Costa F, Kauffmann EF, Menonna F, Iacopi S, Vistoli F, Amorese G (2016) Robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. World J Surg 40:2497–2506
Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Menonna F, Costa F, Iacopi S, Amorese G, Giorgi S, Baggiani A, Boggi U (2018) Robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score matched analysis based on factors predictive of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Surg Endosc 32:1234–1247
Sabater L, García-Granero A, Escrig-Sos J, Gómez-Mateo Mdel C, Sastre J, Ferrández A, Ortega J (2014) Outcome quality standards in pancreatic oncologic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 21:1138–1146
Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Pitt HA, Winchester DP, Posner MC, Ko CY, Pawlik TM (2014) National assessment of margin status as a quality indicator after pancreatic cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 21:1067–1074
Tomlinson JS, Jain S, Bentrem DJ, Sekeris EG, Maggard MA, Hines OJ, Reber HA, Ko CY (2007) Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg 142:767–774
Ball CG, Pitt HA, Kilbane ME, Dixon E, Sutherland FR, Lillemoe KD (2010) Peri-operative blood transfusion and operative time are quality indicators for pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB 12:465–471
Wu W, He J, Cameron JL, Makary M, Soares K, Ahuja N, Rezaee N, Herman J, Zheng L, Laheru D, Choti MA, Hruban RH, Pawlik TM, Wolfgang CL, Weiss MJ (2014) The impact of postoperative complications on the administration of adjuvant therapy following pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 21:2873–2881
Nussbaum DP, Adam MA, Youngwirth LM, Ganapathi AM, Roman SA, Tyler DS, Sosa JA, Blazer DG (2016) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy does not improve use or time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1026–1033
Esposito I, Kleeff J, Bergmann F, Reiser C, Herpel E, Friess H, Schirmacher P, Büchler MW (2008) Most pancreatic cancer resections are R1 resections. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1651–1660
Sugiura T, Uesaka K, Mihara K, Sasaki K, Kanemoto H, Mizuno T, Okamura Y (2013) Margin status, recurrence pattern, and prognosis after resection of pancreatic cancer. Surgery 154:1078–1086
Verbeke CS, Leitch D, Menon KV, McMahon MJ, Guillou PJ, Anthoney A (2006) Redefining the R1 resection in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 93:1232–1237
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative (2007) The Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457
Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Wu MF, Hilsenbeck SG, Brunicardi FC (2012) Assessment of the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 203:684–690
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Asbun H, Bain A, Behrman SW, Benson AB 3rd, Binder E, Cardin DB, Cha C, Chiorean EG, Chung V, Czito B, Dillhoff M, Dotan E, Ferrone CR, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Herman J, Ko AH, Komanduri S, Koong A, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, O’Reilly EM, Obando J, Reddy S, Scaife C, Thayer S, Weekes CD, Wolff RA, Wolpin BM, Burns J, Darlow S (2017) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15:1028–1061
Kauffmann EF, Napoli N, Menonna F, Vistoli F, Amorese G, Campani D, Pollina LE, Funel N, Cappelli C, Caramella D, Boggi U (2016) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:1111–1122
Boggi U, Del Chiaro M, Croce C, Vistoli F, Signori S, Moretto C, Amorese G, Mazzeo S, Cappelli C, Campani D, Mosca F (2009) Prognostic implications of tumor invasion or adhesion to peripancreatic vessels in resected pancreatic cancer. Surgery 146:869–881
Strobel O, Hank T, Hinz U, Bergmann F, Schneider L, Springfeld C, Jäger D, Schirmacher P, Hackert T, Büchler MW (2017) Pancreatic cancer surgery: the new R-status counts. Ann Surg 265:565–573
Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Yeo CJ, Büchler MW (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH)—An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Petermann D, Demartines N, Schäfer M (2013) Severe postoperative complications adversely affect long-term survival after R1 resection for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 37:1901–1908
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7
Lonjon G, Porcher R, Ergina P, Fouet M, Boutron I (2017) Potential pitfalls of reporting and bias in observational studies with propensity score analysis assessing a surgical procedure: a methodological systematic review. Ann Surg 265:901–909
Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S, Coratti A, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246
Boggi U, Amorese G, Vistoli F, Caniglia F, De Lio N, Perrone V, Barbarello L, Belluomini M, Signori S, Mosca F (2015) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 29:9–23
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, Chaikof EL, Vollmer CM Jr (2013) A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216:1–14
Butler JR, Ahmad SA, Katz MH, Cioffi JL, Zyromski NJ (2016) A systematic review of the role of periadventitial dissection of the superior mesenteric artery in affecting margin status after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB 18:305–311
Ishizaki Y, Sugo H, Yoshimoto J, Imamura H, Kawasaki S (2010) Pancreatoduodenectomy with or without early ligation of the inferior pancreatoduodenal artery: comparison of intraoperative blood loss and short-term outcome. World J Surg 34:2939–2944
Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Ricciardiello M, Minni F (2018) Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: what is the best “choice”? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies. World J Surg 42:788–805
Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS, Ryan DP, Deshpande V, McDonnell EI, Sabbatino F, Santos DD, Allen JN, Blaszkowsky LS, Clark JW, Faris JE, Goyal L, Kwak EL, Murphy JE, Ting DT, Wo JY, Zhu AX, Warshaw AL, Lillemoe KD, Fernández-del Castillo C (2015) Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 261:12–17
Belli C, Cereda S, Anand S, Reni M (2013) Neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a critical review. Cancer Treat Rev 39:518–524
Casadei R, Di Marco M, Ricci C, Santini D, Serra C, Calculli L, D’Ambra M, Guido A, Morselli-Labate AM, Minni F (2015) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone in resectable pancreatic cancer: a single-center prospective, randomized, controlled trial which failed to achieve accrual targets. J Gastrointest Surg 19:1802–1812
Emanuele F Kauffmann, Niccolò Napoli, Francesca Menonna, Sara Iacopi, Carlo Lombardo, Juri Bernardini, Gabriella Amorese, Andrea Cacciato Insilla, Niccola Funel, Daniela Campani, Carla Cappelli, Davide Caramella, and Ugo Boggi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
About this article
Cite this article
Kauffmann, E.F., Napoli, N., Menonna, F. et al. A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer based on margin status. Surg Endosc 33, 234–242 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6301-2
- Pancreatic cancer
- Tumor margins
- Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy
- Propensity score
- Sample size calculation