Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Venous Resection in Pancreatic Cancer

IF 0.1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
C. Ricci, G. Taffurelli, C. Zingaretti, E. Peri, M. D'ambra, S. Buscemi, A. Cucchetti, G. Ercolani, R. Casadei, A. Pinna, F. Minni
{"title":"Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Venous Resection in Pancreatic Cancer","authors":"C. Ricci, G. Taffurelli, C. Zingaretti, E. Peri, M. D'ambra, S. Buscemi, A. Cucchetti, G. Ercolani, R. Casadei, A. Pinna, F. Minni","doi":"10.6092/1590-8577/1713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context Safety and cost-effectiveness of venous resection (VR) in resectable/borderline resectable ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head is still debate. Objectives Primary end point was to compare post-operative mortality between patients treated with a standard resection and patients treated with a VR. Secondary end points were postoperative morbidity, type of discharge, costs of hospitalization, R1 rate, and overall (OS) and disease free (DFS) survivals. Methods From 2001 to 2013, data of 291 pancreatic resections were collected. All patients (n=91) affected by head ductal adenocarcinoma were divided in two groups: with (group B; n=15) or without vascular resection (group A; n=76). The two groups were compared for postoperative course, OS and DFS. Multivariate analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the role of demographic, clinical, surgical (including VR) and pathological factors on mortality, morbidity, type of discharge, costs, R1 rate, OS and DFS. Results Postoperative mortality, morbidity and type of discharge were similar in the two groups. The total costs of hospitalization was similar, while the costs of ICU stay were higher in group B (P=0.012). No differences between two groups about R1 rate, DFS and OS were detected. Age >80 years was the only factor related to postoperative mortality (OR=3.9, P=0.048). ASA score increased the risk of postoperative complications (OR=2.9, P=0.029). Discharge to health care facility was more frequent in patients with age >80 years (OR=405.3, P=0.001) and with an higher preoperative total bilirubin (OR=1.2, P=0.042). ASA score increase by 34% the total hospital stay (P=0.004), by 48% the total hospital costs (P G1 at imaging were all predictive of a worse DFS (HR=3.2, P=0.050; HR=2.6, P=0.027; and HR=1.6, P=0.043, respectively). Conclusions VR is safe and useful to reach an R0 resection. VR affects the costs of postoperative management. OS and DFS were similar in patients with or without VR.","PeriodicalId":47280,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Pancreas","volume":"14 1","pages":"591"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Pancreas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/1590-8577/1713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context Safety and cost-effectiveness of venous resection (VR) in resectable/borderline resectable ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head is still debate. Objectives Primary end point was to compare post-operative mortality between patients treated with a standard resection and patients treated with a VR. Secondary end points were postoperative morbidity, type of discharge, costs of hospitalization, R1 rate, and overall (OS) and disease free (DFS) survivals. Methods From 2001 to 2013, data of 291 pancreatic resections were collected. All patients (n=91) affected by head ductal adenocarcinoma were divided in two groups: with (group B; n=15) or without vascular resection (group A; n=76). The two groups were compared for postoperative course, OS and DFS. Multivariate analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the role of demographic, clinical, surgical (including VR) and pathological factors on mortality, morbidity, type of discharge, costs, R1 rate, OS and DFS. Results Postoperative mortality, morbidity and type of discharge were similar in the two groups. The total costs of hospitalization was similar, while the costs of ICU stay were higher in group B (P=0.012). No differences between two groups about R1 rate, DFS and OS were detected. Age >80 years was the only factor related to postoperative mortality (OR=3.9, P=0.048). ASA score increased the risk of postoperative complications (OR=2.9, P=0.029). Discharge to health care facility was more frequent in patients with age >80 years (OR=405.3, P=0.001) and with an higher preoperative total bilirubin (OR=1.2, P=0.042). ASA score increase by 34% the total hospital stay (P=0.004), by 48% the total hospital costs (P G1 at imaging were all predictive of a worse DFS (HR=3.2, P=0.050; HR=2.6, P=0.027; and HR=1.6, P=0.043, respectively). Conclusions VR is safe and useful to reach an R0 resection. VR affects the costs of postoperative management. OS and DFS were similar in patients with or without VR.
胰腺癌静脉切除术的安全性和成本效益
背景:对于可切除/交界性可切除胰头导管腺癌,静脉切除(VR)的安全性和成本效益仍存在争议。主要终点是比较标准切除和VR切除患者的术后死亡率。次要终点为术后发病率、出院类型、住院费用、R1率、总生存率(OS)和无病生存率(DFS)。方法收集2001 ~ 2013年291例胰腺切除术资料。将91例头部导管腺癌患者分为两组:B组;n=15)或不切除血管(A组;n = 76)。比较两组患者术后病程、OS和DFS。进行多因素分析,评价人口学、临床、手术(包括VR)和病理因素对死亡率、发病率、出院类型、费用、R1率、OS和DFS的影响。结果两组患者术后死亡率、发病率及出院类型相似。B组患者住院总费用相近,但ICU住院费用较高(P=0.012)。两组间R1率、DFS和OS均无差异。年龄0 ~ 80岁是影响术后死亡率的唯一因素(OR=3.9, P=0.048)。ASA评分增加了术后并发症的发生风险(OR=2.9, P=0.029)。年龄在50 ~ 80岁的患者出院频率更高(OR=405.3, P=0.001),术前总胆红素较高(OR=1.2, P=0.042)。ASA评分增加34%的总住院时间(P=0.004),增加48%的总住院费用(影像学时的pg1均可预测更差的DFS (HR=3.2, P=0.050;HR = 2.6, P = 0.027;HR=1.6, P=0.043)。结论VR是安全有效的R0切除方法。VR影响术后管理成本。有无VR患者的OS和DFS相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Pancreas
Journal of the Pancreas GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信