Prognostic analysis of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20220430-00245
- VernacularTitle:机器人与开腹胰十二指肠切除术治疗胰腺癌的预后分析
- Author:
Haoda CHEN
1
;
Chao WANG
;
Bingwei SU
;
Xiuqi ZHANG
;
Yuxuan YANG
;
Yuchen JI
;
Yusheng SHI
;
Yuanchi WENG
;
Chenghong PENG
;
Baiyong SHEN
;
Xiaxing DENG
Author Information
1. 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院普通外科胰腺中心，上海 200025
- Keywords:
Pancreatic neoplasms;
Robotic surgery;
Laparotomy;
Pancreatoduodenec-tomy;
Propensity score matching;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery
2022;21(5):609-615
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the prognosis of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy after the learning curve and open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.Methods:The propensity score matching and retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 396 patients who underwent curative pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic duct adenocar-cinoma in Ruijin Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from January 2017 to December 2018 were collected. There were 244 males and 152 females, aged 64(range, 36?92)years. Of 396 patients, 86 cases undergoing robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were divided into robotic group, 310 cases undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy were divided into open group. Observa-tion indicators: (1) propensity score matching and comparison of general data between the two groups after matching; (2) follow-up and survival analysis. Follow-up was conducted by telephone interview or outpatient examinations including tumor markers and abdominal imaging examina-tions to detect survival of patients up to March 2022. Overall survival was defined as the time from the surgery date to death or the last follow-up. Disease-free survival was defined as the time from the surgery date to tumor recurrence or the last follow-up. The propensity score matching was conducted by 1∶1 matching using the nearest neighbor method. Normality of measurement data was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M(range), and comparison between groups was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. Count data were represented as absolute numbers, and comparison between groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates and draw survival curves, and Log-Rank test was used for survival analysis. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed in this study, patients who were converted to laparotomy from robotic surgery were still divided into the robotic group. Results:(1) Propensity score matching and comparison of general data between the two groups after matching: 164 of 396 patients had successful matching, including 82 cases in robotic group and open group, respectively. Before propensity score matching, the body mass index, cases in stage T1, T2, T3, T4, cases in N0, N1, N2 were 23.4(range, 21.4?25.3)kg/m 2,24, 41, 10, 11, 52, 27, 7 for the robotic group, versus 22.4(range,20.3?23.9)kg/m 2,57, 144, 22, 87, 131, 132, 47 for the open group, showing significant differences in the above indicators between the two groups ( Z=3.01, 2.63, 3.03, P<0.05). After propensity score matching, cases of males, age, body mass index, cases with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score as 1, 2, 3, CA19-9, cases with preoperative biliary drainage, cases with portal vein resection, cases with pancreatic resection margin <1 mm, cases in stage T1, T2, T3, T4, cases in stage N0, N1, N2, cases with nerve invasion, cases with tumor differentiation as high-medium differentiation, medium-low differentiation, low differentiation, cases with adjuvant chemotherapy were 51, 65(range, 59?69)years, 23.0(range, 21.0?25.2)kg/m 2, 32, 41, 9, 160.4(range, 46.7?377.2)U/mL, 21, 9, 8, 21, 40, 10, 11, 48, 27, 7, 76, 26, 47, 9, 53 for the robotic group, versus 58, 65(range, 58?69)years, 23.3(range, 21.4?25.3)kg/m 2, 35, 39, 8, 172.0(range, 69.7?402.9)U/mL, 26, 9, 10, 24, 40, 7, 11, 49, 28, 5, 76, 22, 49, 11, 57 for the open group, showing no significant difference in the above indicators between the two groups ( χ2=1.34, Z=0.18, 0.34, 0.49, 0.51, χ2=0.75, 0.00,0.25, Z=0.59, 0.27, χ2=0.00, Z=0.76, χ2=0.44, P>0.05). (2) Follow-up and survival analysis: after propensity score matching, 164 patients were followed up for 54(range, 1?67)months. The follow-up time of patients was 55(range, 51?59)months for the robotic group, versus 54(range, 50?58)months for the open group, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups ( Z=0.48, P>0.05). During the follow-up, the 1-year overall survival rate, 3-year overall survival rate, the median survival time, 1-year disease-free survival rate, 3-year disease-free survival rate, the median disease-free survival time, tumor recurrence rate, cases with recurrence pattern as local recurrence, liver recurrence, other distant recurrence, local and distant recurrence were 81.7%, 39.0%, 27 months(95% confidence interval as 19?33 months), 61.0%, 34.2%, 15 months(95% confidence interval as 12?18 months), 54.9%(45/82), 12, 16, 9, 8 for the robotic group. The above indicators were 79.3%, 36.0%, 24 months(95% confidence interval as 19?31 months), 59.8%, 27.5%, 15 months(95% confidence interval as 10?20 months), 58.5% (48/82), 10, 22, 6, 10 for the open group. There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival between the two groups ( χ2=0.39, 0.47, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in tumor recurrence rate or tumor recurrence site between the two groups either ( χ2=0.22, 1.86, P>0.05). Conclusion:After the learning curve, robotic pancreato-duodenectomy has non-inferior prognosis compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy.
