Cargando…

Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND: There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DC...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Yuwen, Zu, Guangchen, Wu, Di, Zhang, Yue, Yang, Yang, Wu, Han, Chen, Xuemin, Chen, Weibo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9715962/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36465359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1057337
_version_ 1784842574804025344
author Zhu, Yuwen
Zu, Guangchen
Wu, Di
Zhang, Yue
Yang, Yang
Wu, Han
Chen, Xuemin
Chen, Weibo
author_facet Zhu, Yuwen
Zu, Guangchen
Wu, Di
Zhang, Yue
Yang, Yang
Wu, Han
Chen, Xuemin
Chen, Weibo
author_sort Zhu, Yuwen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC. METHODS: The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan−Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS. RESULTS: The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P<0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9715962
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97159622022-12-03 Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis Zhu, Yuwen Zu, Guangchen Wu, Di Zhang, Yue Yang, Yang Wu, Han Chen, Xuemin Chen, Weibo Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: There are few studies comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). Our objective was to assess the short-term efficacy and long-term survival of LPD and OPD in patients with DCC. METHODS: The data of 124 DCC patients who underwent LPD or OPD at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from May 2010 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups of baseline characteristics. After 1:1 matching, the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was compared by the Kaplan−Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of OS. RESULTS: The original cohort consisted of 124 patients. Nineteen patients were excluded because of incomplete baseline or follow-up data, and the remaining 105 patients were divided into two cohorts (45 in the LPD group and 60 in the OPD group). The LPD group showed more favorable results in OS analysis (LPD vs. OPD, 56.4 [46.2-66.5] vs. 48.9 [36.4-61.4], months, P=0. 01). PSM analysis identified 30 pairs of patients, and differences between matching groups were still significant (LPD vs. OPD, 67.9[58.2-77.6] vs. 47.4[31.4-67.5], months, P=0.002). Moreover, the LPD group experienced less intraoperative bleeding (LPD vs. OPD, 292.67 vs. 519.17 mL, P=0.002). Univariate analysis showed that surgical modality (P=0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.043), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.003), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P=0.012), blood transfusion (P=0.031), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (P<0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.004) were predictors of OS. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (P=0.048), carcinoembryonic antigen (P=0.031) and lymphatic metastasis (P=0.023) were independent predictive factors of OS. However, adjuvant therapy had no significant effect on the OS of DCC patients after radical pancreaticoduodenectomy (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For DCC patients, LPD may be a more recommended procedure because of its advantages over OPD in terms of intraoperative bleeding and long-term survival. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9715962/ /pubmed/36465359 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1057337 Text en Copyright © 2022 Zhu, Zu, Wu, Zhang, Yang, Wu, Chen and Chen https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Zhu, Yuwen
Zu, Guangchen
Wu, Di
Zhang, Yue
Yang, Yang
Wu, Han
Chen, Xuemin
Chen, Weibo
Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title_full Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title_short Comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis
title_sort comparison of laparoscopic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of distal cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9715962/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36465359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1057337
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuyuwen comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT zuguangchen comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT wudi comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT zhangyue comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT yangyang comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT wuhan comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT chenxuemin comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT chenweibo comparisonoflaparoscopicandopenpancreaticoduodenectomyforthetreatmentofdistalcholangiocarcinomaapropensityscorematchinganalysis