BACKGROUND: The aim was to explore the optimal neoadjuvant therapy strategy for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new neoadjuvant treatment protocols for clinical use.
METHODS: The authors reviewed literature titles and abstracts comparing three treatment strategies (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and upfront surgery) in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science from 2009 to 2023 to estimate relative odds ratios for resection rate and hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) in all include trials.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies involving 889 patients were included in the analysis. The treatment methods included upfront surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. The network meta-analysis results demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery was an effective approach in improving OS for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) patients compared to upfront surgery (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98). Additionally, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly increased the margin negative resection (R0) rate and pathological negative lymph node (pN0) rate in patients with resectable and borderline RPC. However, it is worth noting that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increased the risk of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, including in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the optimal choice for treating patients with resectable and borderline RPC. Future research should focus on optimizing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens to effectively improve OS while reducing the occurrence of adverse events.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B-C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference: -0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: -3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the continuous advancement of cancer treatments, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of multivisceral oncological pancreatic resections on morbidity, mortality, and long-term survival is currently lacking.
OBJECTIVE: This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis designed to summarize the existing evidence concerning the outcomes of multivisceral oncological pancreatic resections across diverse tumor entities.
METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search of the PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases in strict accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The predefined outcomes encompass postoperative mortality, postoperative morbidity, overall and disease-free survival (1- to 5-year survival rates), the proportion of macroscopically complete (R0) resections (according to the Royal College of Pathologists definition), duration of hospital stay (in days), reoperation rate (%), postoperative complications (covering all complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification), as well as pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying (all according to the definitions of the International Study Group of Pancreas Surgery).
RESULTS: Systematic database searches will begin in July 2024. The completion of the meta-analysis is anticipated by December 2024. Before completion, the literature search will be checked for new publications that must be considered in the context of the work.
CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming findings will provide an up-to-date overview of the feasibility, safety, and oncological efficacy of multivisceral pancreatic resections across diverse tumor entities. This data will serve as a valuable resource for health care professionals and patients to make well-informed clinical decisions.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023437858; https://tinyurl.com/bde5xmfw.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/54089.

OBJECTIVE: Middle segment-preserving pancreatectomy (MSPP) is a relatively new parenchymal-sparing surgery that has been introduced as an alternative to total pancreatectomy (TP) for multicentric benign and borderline pancreatic diseases. To date, only 36 cases have been reported in English.
METHODS: We reviewed 22 published articles on MSPP and reported an additional case.
RESULTS: Our patient was a 49-year-old Japanese man diagnosed with Zollinger-Elison syndrome (ZES) caused by duodenal and pancreatic gastrinoma associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1. We avoided TP and chose MSPP as the operative technique due to his relatively young age. The patient developed a grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), which improved with conservative treatment. He was discharged without further treatment. To date, no tumor has recurred, and pancreatic function seems to be maintained. According to a literature review, the morbidity rate of MSPP is as high as 54%, mainly due to the high incidence of POPF (32%). In contrast, there was no perioperative mortality, and postoperative pancreatic function was comparable to that after conventional pancreatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high incidence of POPF, MSPP appears to be safe, with low perioperative mortality and good postoperative pancreatic sufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).
METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with high mortality. At the time of diagnosis, majority of patients (80-90%) present with either locally advanced unresectable disease or metastatic disease. Even after curative resection, the recurrence rate remains quite high. This article aimed at reviewing the updated management of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: We identified literature by searching Medline and PubMed from January 2010 to June 2023 using the keywords.
UNASSIGNED: A multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimize the outcomes for both curable and advanced diseases. Management of pancreatic cancer divided into resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced, and metastatic diseases. Surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment approach for resectable pancreatic cancer. The recommended adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with good functional status is modified FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin). The recommended adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with suboptimal functional status is gemcitabine plus capecitabine or monotherapy gemcitabine. The optimal treatment strategy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is still uncertain. Traditionally, upfront surgery is the choice of treatment. There is increasing evidence showing benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. However, the optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen was not certain yet. Advancement of chemotherapy has a positive impact for the survival of advanced disease. For patients with good functional status, the recommended first-line systemic chemotherapy for unresectable locally advanced disease or metastatic disease is combination chemotherapy regimens such as FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus nabpaclitaxel. For patients with suboptimal functional status, the recommended first-line systemic chemotherapy for unresectable locally advanced disease or metastatic disease is gemcitabine plus capecitabine or monotherapy gemcitabine. Recently, more researches showed promising results in the use of nanoliposomal irinotecan, targeted agents such as a poly [adenosine diphosphate (ADB)-ribose] polymerase inhibitor, tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors, and immune checkpoint-inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer is a challenging disease for management. Radical surgery itself is not enough for prolong survival. The improvement of chemotherapy, target agents and immunotherapy with multidisciplinary approach will be the only solution for improvement of survival outcome and quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improved systemic therapy has made long term (≥ 5 years) overall survival (LTS) after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) increasingly common. However, a systematic review on predictors of LTS following resection of PDAC is lacking.
METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2023. Studies reporting actual survival data (based on follow-up and not survival analysis estimates) on factors associated with LTS were included. Meta-analyses were conducted by using a random effects model, and study quality was gauged by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 27,091 patients (LTS: 2,132, non-LTS: 24,959) who underwent surgical resection for PDAC were meta-analyzed. The median proportion of LTS patients was 18.32% (IQR 12.97-21.18%) based on 20 studies. Predictors for LTS included sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative levels of CA19-9, CEA, and albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, tumor grade, AJCC stage, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, pathologic T-stage, nodal disease, metastatic disease, margin status, adjuvant therapy, vascular resection, operative time, operative blood loss, and perioperative blood transfusion. Most articles received a \"good\" NOS assessment, indicating an acceptable risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis pools all true follow up data in the literature to quantify associations between prognostic factors and LTS after resection of PDAC. While there appears to be evidence of a complex interplay between risk, tumor biology, patient characteristics, and management related factors, no single parameter can predict LTS after the resection of PDAC.

In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), there has been some evidence favoring pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) over pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) in the occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) and considering PG as a safer anastomotic technique. However, other publications revealed comparable incidences of POPF attributed to both techniques. The current work attempts to reach a more consolidated conclusion about such an issue.
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that analyzed the studies comparing PG and PJ during PD in terms of the rate of POPF occurrence. Studies were obtained by searching the Scopus, PubMed Central, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.
35 articles published between 1995 and 2022 presented data from 14,666 patients; 4547 underwent PG and 10,119 underwent PJ. Statistically significant lower rates of POPF (p = 0.044) and clinically relevant CR-POPF (p = 0.043) were shown in the PG group. The post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) was significantly higher in the PG group, while no significant difference was found between the two groups in the clinically significant PPH. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the amount of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, DGE, overall morbidity rates, reoperation rates, or mortality rates. The percentage of male sex in the PG group and the percentage of soft pancreas in the PJ group seem to influence the odds ratio of CR-POPF (p = 0.076 and 0.074, respectively).
The present study emphasizes the superiority of PG over PJ regarding CR-POPF rates. Higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage were associated with PG. Yet, the clinically significant hemorrhage rate was comparable between the two groups.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has a considerable surgical risk for complications and late metabolic morbidity. Parenchyma-sparing resection of benign tumors has the potential to cure patients associated with reduced procedure-related short- and long-term complications.
METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting surgery-related complications following PD and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. A total of 38 cohort studies that included data from 1262 patients were analyzed. In total, 729 patients underwent DPPHR and 533 PD.
RESULTS: Concordance between preoperative diagnosis of benign tumors and final histopathology was 90.57% for DPPHR. Cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNETs) and periampullary tumors (PATs) were observed in 497, 89, and 31 patients, respectively. In total, 34 of 161 (21.1%) patients with intraepithelial papillar mucinous neoplasm exhibited severe dysplasia in the final histopathology. The meta-analysis, when comparing DPPHRt and PD, revealed in-hospital mortality of 1/362 (0.26%) and 8/547 (1.46%) patients, respectively [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.15-1.58); p = 0.21], and frequency of reoperation of 3.26 % and 6.75%, respectively [OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.96); p = 0.04]. After a follow-up of 45.8 ± 26.6 months, 14/340 patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms/mucinous cystic neoplasms (IPMN/MCN, 4.11%) and 2/89 patients with PNET (2.24%) exhibited tumor recurrence. Local recurrence at the resection margin and reoccurrence of tumor growth in the remnant pancreas was comparable after DPPHR or PD [OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.178-5.34); p = 0.96].
CONCLUSIONS: DPPHR for benign, premalignant neoplasms provides a cure for patients with low risk of tumor recurrence and significantly fewer early surgery-related complications compared with PD. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign, premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms.