微创远端胰腺切除术作为美国的标准治疗:我们做到了吗?

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancers Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI:10.3390/cancers17183015
Laleh Foroutani, Andrew Gonzalez, Jaeyun Jane Wang, Bahaa I Aburayya, Amir Ashraf Ganjouei, Jean Feng, Lucas Willian Thornblade, Kenzo Hirose, Ajay V Maker, Eric Nakakura, Carlos Uriel Corvera, Adnan Alseidi, Mohamed A Adam
{"title":"微创远端胰腺切除术作为美国的标准治疗:我们做到了吗?","authors":"Laleh Foroutani, Andrew Gonzalez, Jaeyun Jane Wang, Bahaa I Aburayya, Amir Ashraf Ganjouei, Jean Feng, Lucas Willian Thornblade, Kenzo Hirose, Ajay V Maker, Eric Nakakura, Carlos Uriel Corvera, Adnan Alseidi, Mohamed A Adam","doi":"10.3390/cancers17183015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While there is an increasing shift towards minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), little is known about how utilization of MIDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has evolved over time. We aimed to determine competing temporal trends in use and outcomes of MIDP (laparoscopic and robotic) over time and to determine if a threshold of effectiveness has been reached.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults undergoing MIDP and ODP were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2021) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to address baseline differences between groups before comparing outcomes. Joinpoint regression analysis (JRA) was employed to assess adjusted trends in adoption and outcomes. We calculated Annual Percentage Change (APC) and Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) to quantify yearly adoption rates and their trends, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 21,966 patients in the NCDB cohort, 49.5% underwent MIDP, including 33.7% laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 15.8% robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), while 50.5% underwent ODP. ODP declined from 74.1% of cases (2010) to 41.1% (2021), with an AAPC of -4.9%. MIDP increased significantly throughout the study from 25.9% of cases (2010) to 58.9% (2021), with an AAPC of 6.3%. Among MIDP subgroups, there was an initial increase in LDP until 2016, after which its rate of utilization stagnated with an AAPC of 0.7% (<i>p</i> > 0.05). In contrast, RDP demonstrated steady growth with an AAPC of about 15% (<i>p</i> < 0.05). A consistent and significant decline in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates occurred across all surgical approaches, with the most pronounced improvement observed in the robotic approach. MIDP approaches had significantly shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates; however, RDP cases were associated with longer operative times compared to LDP and ODP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over the past decade, the use of MIDP increased while ODP decreased. This increase was initially driven by greater use of LDP, which plateaued after 2016, and was further driven by the increased use of the robotic approach. Specifically, RDP demonstrated consistent growth, while LDP showed a decline around 2016. These findings highlight changing practice patterns, accompanied by improvements across all surgical approaches. This may provide insights for clinical training and resource allocation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468204/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy as the Standard of Care in the US: Are We There Yet?\",\"authors\":\"Laleh Foroutani, Andrew Gonzalez, Jaeyun Jane Wang, Bahaa I Aburayya, Amir Ashraf Ganjouei, Jean Feng, Lucas Willian Thornblade, Kenzo Hirose, Ajay V Maker, Eric Nakakura, Carlos Uriel Corvera, Adnan Alseidi, Mohamed A Adam\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cancers17183015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While there is an increasing shift towards minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), little is known about how utilization of MIDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has evolved over time. We aimed to determine competing temporal trends in use and outcomes of MIDP (laparoscopic and robotic) over time and to determine if a threshold of effectiveness has been reached.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults undergoing MIDP and ODP were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2021) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to address baseline differences between groups before comparing outcomes. Joinpoint regression analysis (JRA) was employed to assess adjusted trends in adoption and outcomes. We calculated Annual Percentage Change (APC) and Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) to quantify yearly adoption rates and their trends, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 21,966 patients in the NCDB cohort, 49.5% underwent MIDP, including 33.7% laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 15.8% robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), while 50.5% underwent ODP. ODP declined from 74.1% of cases (2010) to 41.1% (2021), with an AAPC of -4.9%. MIDP increased significantly throughout the study from 25.9% of cases (2010) to 58.9% (2021), with an AAPC of 6.3%. Among MIDP subgroups, there was an initial increase in LDP until 2016, after which its rate of utilization stagnated with an AAPC of 0.7% (<i>p</i> > 0.05). In contrast, RDP demonstrated steady growth with an AAPC of about 15% (<i>p</i> < 0.05). A consistent and significant decline in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates occurred across all surgical approaches, with the most pronounced improvement observed in the robotic approach. MIDP approaches had significantly shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates; however, RDP cases were associated with longer operative times compared to LDP and ODP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over the past decade, the use of MIDP increased while ODP decreased. This increase was initially driven by greater use of LDP, which plateaued after 2016, and was further driven by the increased use of the robotic approach. Specifically, RDP demonstrated consistent growth, while LDP showed a decline around 2016. These findings highlight changing practice patterns, accompanied by improvements across all surgical approaches. This may provide insights for clinical training and resource allocation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancers\",\"volume\":\"17 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468204/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17183015\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17183015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:虽然越来越多的人转向微创远端胰腺切除术(MIDP),但人们对MIDP与开放式远端胰腺切除术(ODP)的应用如何随着时间的推移而发展知之甚少。我们的目的是确定MIDP(腹腔镜和机器人)的使用和结果随时间的变化趋势,并确定是否达到了有效性的阈值。方法:从国家癌症数据库(2010-2021)和国家手术质量改进计划数据库(2014-2022)中确定接受MIDP和ODP的成人。在比较结果之前,进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)以解决组间基线差异。采用联合点回归分析(JRA)来评估调整后的采用率趋势和结果。我们分别计算了年度百分比变化(APC)和平均年度百分比变化(AAPC)来量化年度采用率及其趋势。结果:在NCDB队列的21966例患者中,49.5%的患者接受了MIDP,其中33.7%的患者接受了腹腔镜远端胰腺切除术(LDP), 15.8%的患者接受了机器人远端胰腺切除术(RDP), 50.5%的患者接受了ODP。ODP从2010年的74.1%下降到2021年的41.1%,AAPC为-4.9%。在整个研究过程中,MIDP从25.9%(2010年)显著增加到58.9%(2021年),AAPC为6.3%。在MIDP亚组中,直到2016年,LDP的初始增加,之后其利用率停滞不前,AAPC为0.7% (p > 0.05)。RDP稳定增长,AAPC约为15% (p < 0.05)。在所有手术入路中,临床相关的术后胰瘘发生率均有一致且显著的下降,其中机器人入路的改善最为显著。MIDP方法显著缩短住院时间和降低死亡率;然而,与LDP和ODP相比,RDP病例的手术时间更长。结论:在过去的十年中,MIDP的使用增加,而ODP下降。这一增长最初是由更多地使用LDP推动的,LDP在2016年之后趋于平稳,并进一步受到机器人方法使用增加的推动。具体来说,2016年前后,RDP表现出持续增长,而自民党表现出下降。这些发现强调了实践模式的改变,伴随着所有手术入路的改进。这可能为临床培训和资源分配提供见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy as the Standard of Care in the US: Are We There Yet?

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy as the Standard of Care in the US: Are We There Yet?

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy as the Standard of Care in the US: Are We There Yet?

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy as the Standard of Care in the US: Are We There Yet?

Introduction: While there is an increasing shift towards minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), little is known about how utilization of MIDP vs. open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has evolved over time. We aimed to determine competing temporal trends in use and outcomes of MIDP (laparoscopic and robotic) over time and to determine if a threshold of effectiveness has been reached.

Methods: Adults undergoing MIDP and ODP were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2021) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to address baseline differences between groups before comparing outcomes. Joinpoint regression analysis (JRA) was employed to assess adjusted trends in adoption and outcomes. We calculated Annual Percentage Change (APC) and Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) to quantify yearly adoption rates and their trends, respectively.

Results: Among 21,966 patients in the NCDB cohort, 49.5% underwent MIDP, including 33.7% laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and 15.8% robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), while 50.5% underwent ODP. ODP declined from 74.1% of cases (2010) to 41.1% (2021), with an AAPC of -4.9%. MIDP increased significantly throughout the study from 25.9% of cases (2010) to 58.9% (2021), with an AAPC of 6.3%. Among MIDP subgroups, there was an initial increase in LDP until 2016, after which its rate of utilization stagnated with an AAPC of 0.7% (p > 0.05). In contrast, RDP demonstrated steady growth with an AAPC of about 15% (p < 0.05). A consistent and significant decline in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates occurred across all surgical approaches, with the most pronounced improvement observed in the robotic approach. MIDP approaches had significantly shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates; however, RDP cases were associated with longer operative times compared to LDP and ODP.

Conclusions: Over the past decade, the use of MIDP increased while ODP decreased. This increase was initially driven by greater use of LDP, which plateaued after 2016, and was further driven by the increased use of the robotic approach. Specifically, RDP demonstrated consistent growth, while LDP showed a decline around 2016. These findings highlight changing practice patterns, accompanied by improvements across all surgical approaches. This may provide insights for clinical training and resource allocation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信