Article

Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable periampullary carcinoma

Department of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, 9th Floor, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008533.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The role of prophylactic gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer is controversial.
To determine whether prophylactic gastrojejunostomy should be performed routinely in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer.
We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2010.
We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic gastrojejunostomy versus no gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer (irrespective of language or publication status).
Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis.
We identified two trials (of high risk of bias) involving 152 patients randomised to gastrojejunostomy (80 patients) and no gastrojejunostomy (72 patients). In both trials, patients were found to be unresectable during exploratory laparotomy. Most of the patients also underwent biliary-enteric drainage. There was no evidence of difference in the overall survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.25), peri-operative mortality or morbidity, quality of life, or hospital stay (MD 0.97 days; 95%CI -0.18 to 2.12) between the two groups. The proportion of patients who developed long term gastric outlet obstruction was significantly lower in the prophylactic gastrojejunostomy group (2/80; 2.5%) compared with no gastrojejunostomy group (20/72; 27.8%) (RR 0.10; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.37). The operating time was significantly longer in the gastrojejunostomy group compared with no gastrojejunostomy group (MD 45.00 minutes; 95%CI 21.39 to 68.61).
Routine prophylactic gastrojejunostomy is indicated in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer undergoing exploratory laparotomy (with or without hepaticojejunostomy).

0 Followers
 · 
144 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: This study reports the indications and outcome of various biliary bypass surgical procedures from a single centre over a period of 10 years. Methods: This is a prospective observational study conducted over a period of 10 years (January 2001-december 2010). A total of 1500 patients were included, who underwent pancreatico-biliary surgery due to common bile duct (CBD) stones, congenital anomalies of biliary tree, unoperable pancreatico-biliary malignancies, CBD strictures and cases who developed iatrogenic biliary injuries during cholecystectomy (both open & laproscopic) during this period of time. The patients who required biliary bypass surgery were further analysed for indications and outcome. Results: Out of 1500 patients 83(5.53%) required biliary bypass surgical procedures. The CBD stones were observed as the most common indication (25.3%), followed by CBD injuries after open(10.84%) or laproscopic-cholecystectomy (14.46%), carcinoma head of pancreas (12.05%) and CBD obstruction(14.46%) either due to CBD strictures or unknown distal obstruction. Roux-en-Y-hepatico-jejunostomy (26.51%) was the most frequently performed procedure, followed by choledochoduodenostomy and Roux-en-Y choledocho-jejunostomy (i.e. 25.3% and 12.05% respectively). Roux-en-Y biliary bypass procedure was observed to be associated with better outcome in terms of rate of complications as well duration of hospital stay. Conclusion: Biliary bypass surgical procedures are the better options to restore the continuity of biliary system in patients with iatrogenic biliary tree injuries and un-operable pancreatico-biliary malignancy. Roux-en-Y biliary bypass procedure is safe and problem solving method in these cases.
    Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Online 05/2013; 29(3):799-802. DOI:10.12669/pjms.293.3394 · 0.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive cancer. Resection of the cancer is the only treatment with the potential to achieve long-term survival. However, a third of patients with pancreatic cancer have locally advanced cancer involving adjacent structures such as blood vessels which are not usually removed because of fear of increased complications after surgery. Such patients often receive palliative treatment. Resection of the pancreas along with the involved vessels is an alternative to palliative treatment for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. To compare the benefits and harms of surgical resection versus palliative treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers until February 2014. We included randomised controlled trials comparing pancreatic resection versus palliative treatments for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (irrespective of language or publication status). Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. We identified two trials comparing pancreatic resection versus other treatments for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Ninety eight patients were randomised to pancreatic resection (n = 47) or palliative treatment (n = 51) in the two trials included in this review. Both trials were at high risk of bias. Both trials included patients who had locally advanced pancreatic cancer which involved the serosa anteriorly or retroperitoneum posteriorly or involved the blood vessels. Such pancreatic cancers would be considered generally unresectable. One trial included patients with pancreatic cancer in different locations of the pancreas including the head, neck and body (n = 42). The patients allocated to the pancreatic resection group underwent partial pancreatic resection (pancreatoduodenectomy with lymph node clearance or distal pancreatic resection with lymph node clearance) in this trial; the control group received palliative treatment with chemoradiotherapy. In the other trial, only patients with cancer in the head or neck of the pancreas were included (n = 56). The patients allocated to the pancreatic resection group underwent en bloc total pancreatectomy with splenectomy and vascular reconstruction in this trial; the control group underwent palliative bypass surgery with chemoimmunotherapy. The pancreatic resection group had lower mortality than the palliative treatment group (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58, very low quality evidence). Both trials followed the survivors up to at least five years. There were no survivors at two years in the palliative treatment group in either trial. Approximately 40% of the patients who underwent pancreatic resection were alive in the pancreatic resection group at the end of three years. This difference in survival was statistically significant (RR 22.68; 95% CI 3.15 to 163.22). The difference persisted at five years of follow-up (RR 8.65; 95% CI 1.12 to 66.89). Neither trial reported severe adverse events but it is likely that a significant proportion of patients suffered from severe adverse events in both groups. The overall peri-operative mortality in the resection group in the two trials was 2.5%. None of the trials reported quality of life. The estimated difference in the length of total hospital stay (which included all admissions of the patient related to the treatment) between the two groups was imprecise (MD -23.00 days; 95% CI -59.05 to 13.05, very low quality evidence). The total treatment costs were significantly lower in the pancreatic resection group than the palliative treatment group (MD -10.70 thousand USD; 95% CI -14.11 to -7.29, very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that pancreatic resection increases survival and decreases costs compared to palliative treatments for selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and venous involvement. When sufficient expertise is available, pancreatic resection could be considered for selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who are willing to accept the potentially increased morbidity associated with the procedure. Further randomised controlled trials are necessary to increase confidence in the estimate of effect and to assess the quality of life of patients and the cost-effectiveness of pancreatic resection versus palliative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2014; 2(2):CD010244. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010244.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exocrine pancreatic cancer (PC) is a very aggressive and heterogeneous tumor with several cellular signaling pathways implicated in its pathogenesis and maintenance. Several risk factors increase the risk of developing PC. Therapeutic strategies used are dictated by the extent of disease. Supportive treatment is critical because of the high frequency of symptoms. For localized disease, surgery followed by adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard. Neoadjuvant and new adjuvant chemotherapy regimens are being evaluated. Locally advanced disease should respond best guided by a multidisciplinary team. Various treatment options are appropriate such as chemotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy with integration of rescue surgery if the tumor becomes resectable. In metastatic disease, chemotherapy should be reserved for patients with ECOG 0-1 using Folfirinox or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as the most recommended options. Several therapeutic strategies targeting unregulated pathways are under evaluation with an unmet need for biomarkers to guide management.
    Clinical and Translational Oncology 04/2014; 16(10). DOI:10.1007/s12094-014-1177-7 · 1.60 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
57 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014