advanced surgical techniques for pancreatic cancer dr. janak parikh, md, mshs november 2, 2013 st....
Post on 31-Mar-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Advanced Surgical Techniques For Pancreatic Cancer
Dr. Janak Parikh, MD, MSHSNovember 2, 2013
St. John Providence Health System
2013 GI Cancer Symposium
Overview• Background• Basic Whipple Operation
– History– Resection criteria– Technique (Pylorus-Preservation vs. Classic)
• Advanced Whipple Operation– Vascular resection/reconstruction– Laparoscopic Whipple– Robotic Whipple
• Distal Pancreatectomy– Technique (w/ or w/o splenectomy, Appleby)– Minimally invasive (Laparoscopic, Robotic)
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Incidence and Mortality
• 45,000 new cases in 45,000 new cases in
US in 2013US in 2013
• 3% of malignancies in
the United States
• Fourth leading cause
of cancer death in the
United States
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pancreatic Cancer
• High incidence of regionally advanced and metastatic disease
• Only 10-15% pts have resectable disease
Head 60% Body/Tail 40%
20% resectable <5% resectable
20% 5-yr survival <15% 5-yr survival
<3% alive at 5 years
Most patients are treated with palliative therapiesMost patients are treated with palliative therapies
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Historical Context (1985-2008)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2008
Incidence\100,000Mortality\100,000
Incidence and Mortality Rates 1985-2008NCI’s SEER Program http://www.seer.cancer.gov/
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Fewer Than 1/3 Of Resectable Patients Receive Surgery
Pancreatoduodenectomy—Whipple Operation
History and Evolution
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
History of Pancreatoduodenectomy
Friedrich Trendelenburg (1882)
Allesandro Codivilla (1898)
Walter Kausch (1909)
George Hirschel (1914)OttorinoTenani (1922)
Allan O. Whipple (1935)
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
“Whipple Operation”
Allen Oldfather Whipple
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
1960’s – 1970’s• High perioperative morbidity
• Hospital mortality – 25%
• Long term survival for pancreatic cancer – 5%
• Calls to abandon PD for pancreatic cancer
Crile, Surgery Gyn Obstet 1970;130:1049-53
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Improving the Whipple Operation2013 GI Surgery Symposium
NEJM 2002;346(15):1128-37
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pancreatic Surgery Is Safe At High-Volume Hospitals
Long-Term Survival Better At High-Volume Hospitals
0
0.5
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Days
Sur
viva
l High Volume Hospital
Low Volume Hospital
P=0.001
Fong, Ann Surg 2005; 242:540-7
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
High-Volume Surgeons Have Better Outcomes
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pancreatoduodenectomy—Whipple Operation
Evolution of Operative Techniques
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
• Used less often with the evolution
of imaging quality.
• Considered when:
– Marked weight loss
– Very high CA19-9
– Pain
– Frail patient
Is Diagnostic Laparoscopy Necessary?
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Steps of the Whipple
• Abdominal exploration to r/o occult metastases.
• Mobilization of duodenum and head of pancreas.
• Check for aberrant anatomy.
• Isolation of bile duct, GDA, pylorus.
• Tunnel under neck of pancreas.
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
The Resection
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
The Reconstruction
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pylorus Preserving
vs.
Classic Whipple?
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Theoretical Advantages
• Pylous –preservation
– More physiologic
– Less dumping
• Classic
– Better tumor clearance
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Reality
• You can do it however you want.
– No difference in DGE
– No difference in wt loss/wt gain
• Everything evens out at around 6-8
weeks
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Methods of Reconstruction
• Pancreatojejunostomy– Most common
reconstruction– More physiologic
• Pancreatogatrostomy– Lower leak rate– Access to PD
• Techniques– Duct-to-mucosa– Invagination– Externalization
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Externalizing the Pancreatic-Enteric Anastomosis
• Used by some for high-risk patients:– Soft gland– Small duct– Frail patient
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Palliation of Pain with Alcohol Splanchnicectomy
N = 20 17 19 11 0 5 19 12
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
Pain
Sco
re
Alcohol *p<0.05
Saline †p<0.01
* †
PreOp 2 mos 4 mos Final
* †
*
N = 20 17 19 11 0 5 19 12
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
Pain
Sco
re
Alcohol *p<0.05
Saline †p<0.01
* †
PreOp 2 mos 4 mos Final
* †
*
Lillemoe, et al. Ann Surg 217:447-457, 1993
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Vascular Resection
• Venous resection is acceptable to achieve an R0 resection.
• Arterial resections not recommended.
• Associated with increased blood loss, increased transfusions, increased OR time, and increased morbidity.
• No difference in mortality
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Vascular Resection• Most require partial vein resection with
primary repair.
• Reconstruction options include: – Oversew or patch– end-to-end vs. interposition graft
(internal jugular vein, left renal vein, PTFE)
• Postop anticoagulation varies by surgeon: none, ASA/plavix, coumadin
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Methods of Reconstruction
Tseng, JF, et. al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Vascular Resection:Margin Status and Survival Duration, J GASTROINTEST SURG 2004;8:935–950
Harrison, LE, et. al. Isolated Portal Vein Involvement inPancreatic AdenocarcinomaA Contraindication for Resection? ANNALS OF SURGERY 1996 Vol. 224, No. 3, 342-349
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Methods of Reconstruction
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Venous Resection in Pancreas Cancer
Author NOp
Mort.
Vessel
Invasion 1 yr. survival
Median
Survival
Ishikawa 35 6% 86% n.r. 9
Takahashi* 79 17% 61% 38% 14
Roder 31 0% 77% 20% 8
Tseng 141 2% n.r. 72% 23
Harrison 58 5% n.r. 59% 13
Yekebas 136 4% 73% 58% 15
I.U. 73 3% 65% 71% 14
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Benefits of Laparoscopic Surgery
• Less post-operative pain
• Less post operative ileus
• Preserved immune function
• Decreased stress response
• Shorter hospital stay
• Improved cosmesis
• Decreased complications ?
• Faster time to receipt of
chemo?
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Drawbacks• Learning curve• Increased operative time• Laparoscopic U/S• ? Cost• ? Risk• ? Malignancy
Extent of resectionAdequate surgical marginsLymph node basin dissectionPort site recurrence
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Laparoscopic Whipple
• First performed in 1994 by Gagner and Pomp.
– Coversion rate 40%
– OR time 8.5h
– Authors concluded no advantage
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Laparoscopic Whipple• 7 centers report more than 30 lap
Whipples.
• Feasibility established– Lower EBL, fewer wound
complications, shorter LOS– Increased OR time (541 min vs
401min)– No difference pancreatic fistula rates,
overall complications, DGE, or mortality.
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Laparoscopic Whipple
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Conv Lap Op Time Comp LOS Panc
Author Year N (%) Recon (%) (Min) (%) (days) Can (%)
Gagner 1997 10 40 60 510 30 22.3 40
Dulucq 2006 25 12 50 287 32 16.2 44
Palanivelu 2007 42 0 100 370 31 10.1 21
Pugliese 2008 19 31 31 461 37 18 58
Kendrick 2010 65 4 95 368 40 7 47
Outcomes for Laparoscopic Whipple
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Whipple• Advantages vs. Laparoscopic
Whipple:
– Better visualization (3-D)
– More precise suturing
• Disadvantages
– Steep learning curve
– Longer operative time
– Need for 2 experienced surgeons
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Whipple• Largest experience from U of Pitt
(n=132).
• 30-day mortality 1.5%
• 90-day mortality 3.8%
• Minor complications: 41%
• Major complications: 21%
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Whipple
• HJ leak: 2%
• DJ leak: 6%
• Bleeding: 3.7%
• Pseudoaneurysm: 14.8%
• Grade B fistula: 3.7%
• Grade C fistula: 3.7%
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Whipple
• Mean OR time 527 min (360min last 50)
• Conversion: 8%
• Reoperation: 3%
• LOS: 10 days
• Readmission: 28%
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Distal Pancreatectomy
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Body/Tail Cancers• Tend to present later and with larger
tumors.
• Most will be metastatic at time of presentation (10-15% surgical candidates).
• Diagnostic laparoscopy performed for most (esp. w/ large tumors, high CA 19-9, debilitated patients)
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Is Splenectomy Necessary?• Splenectomy is required during
resection for malignancy to obtain adequate lymph node harvest.
• For premalignant or benign lesions, spleen-preservation attempted when possible.
– Warshaw technique: splenic artery and vein ligation without removal of spleen
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Laparoscopic Approach Is Standard of Care
• Associated with:
– Decreased complication rate
– Decreased blood loss
– Shorter LOS
– Higher splenic preservation rate
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Distal
• 30-, 90-day mortality: 0%
• Minor complications: 59%
• Major complications: 13%
• Grade B fistula: 12%
• Grade C fistula: 4.8%
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Robotic Distal
•OR time: 256 min
•LOS: 6 days
•Readmission: 28%
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Appleby Procedure
• Originally described for locally advanced gastric cancer.
• Involves en-bloc resection of celiac axis, body/tail of pancreas and spleen.
• All should undergo neoadjuvant therapy before attempting an Appleby procedure.
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Appleby: Plane of Resection
Bonnet, S. et. al. Indications and surgical technique of Appleby's operation for tumor invasion of the celiac trunk and its branches. Journal de Chirurgie. Volume 146, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 6–14
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Surgical Outcomes in 2013
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
N Mortality Morbidity
Overall 1175 2% 38%
1970’s 2323 30%30% --
1980’s 65 5% 30%
1990’s 514 2% 31%
2000’s 573 1% 45%
1423 Pancreaticoduodenectomies for Pancreatic Cancer
Winter JM, et al. J Gastrointest Surg 2006, 10:1199-1210
Pancreatic Surgery Is Safe
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Long-Term Survival Remains Poor
Author Year N Median survival
5 year survival
10 year survival
Predictors
Ahmad 2001 116 16 mo 19% - Adj tx
Cleary 2004 123 14 mo 15% 4% Stage, grade
Winter 2006 1175 18 mo 18% 11% Size, LN, margin, grade
Han 2006 123 15 mo 12% - Stage, margin
Ferrone 2008 618 - 12% 5% Stage, Margin
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Paradigm Shift?• Neoadjuvant therapy for all patients with
pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
• Potential benefits:
– Avoid surgery in patients with widely micrometastatic disease
– Down-size tumor to avoid vein resection
– Examination of tumor biology
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Paradigm Shift?
• Opposition:
– Resectable patients progress to unresectable
– Complications of chemo prevent/delay surgery, increase complications
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pre-Operative Therapy Selects Patients Better than Upfront Surgery
● Avoids surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease (unfavorable tumor biology).
Avoids surgery in patients unable to tolerate the stress of pre-operative therapy (those revealed to be unfit).
*Evans DB, et al. JCO, 2008
Protocol Regimen Number of pts
Resection Rate
Overall Survival
MDA
98-020*
Gem/XRT 86 74% 34 mo
MDA
01-341^
Gem/Cis
Gem/XRT
90 66% 31 mo
^Varadhachary GR, et al. JCO, 2008
●Surgery was avoided in 25-35% of the patients; their median survival was 7-10 mo.
●Local failure occurred in 10-25% of patients undergoing resection; suggesting radiation may have a role in preoperative setting.
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Pancreatic Cancer in 2013
•Surgery can be done safely
•Venous resection acceptable for R0 rxn.
•Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy should be standard of care.
•Minimally invasive Whipple feasible, safe at selected centers.
•Need better systemic therapy to impact long-term survival.
2013 GI Surgery Symposium
Advanced Surgical Techniques For Pancreatic Cancer
Dr. Janak Parikh, MD, MSHSNovember 2, 2013
St. John Providence Health System
2013 GI Cancer Symposium
top related