Skip to main content

Comment on ‘comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis’

Abstract

Background

To discuss some inaccurate parts of a published systematic review and meta-analysis which was about comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in overall survival and perioperative outcomes.

Methods

Not applicable.

Results

The study enrolled overlapping patient cohorts and patients with a variety of disease histologies, not specific for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. They also reported different conclusion for R0 resection of 2 approaches in result and discussion part. Some data should be revised through statistical method, which could be polled to analysis.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this published systematic review and meta-analysis was not objective; therefor, the study may mislead readers, especially for those who just read the abstract of this study or not analysis this article in detail.

Peer Review reports

Main text

A recently study by Jiang et al. [1] compared overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis, which was published in August. The author claimed that they evaluate clinical efficacy of LPD and OPD for the treatment of Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, we believe their study has not provided an objective conclusion regarding the oncologic and perioperative outcomes of LPD and OPD in setting of PDAC for the following reasons.

First, 8 studies were included in their meta-analysis, whereas studies of Sharpe et al. [2] and Kantor et al. [3] had overlapping patient cohorts. Their data was both provided by National Cancer Data Base. Sharpe et al. identified all patients 18 years and older diagnosed with PDAC who underwent an LPD or OPD between January 2010 and December 2011, while Kantor et al. analyzed data from 2010 to 2013. Therefore, those describing the smaller-scale studies should be excluded in the meta-analysis.

Second, the objective of their study was to confirm efficacy of LPD in patients with PDAC. However, the studies of Speicher et al. [4] and Chen et al. [5] involved patients with a variety of disease histologies, not specific for PDAC. Speicher et al. enrolled 140 patients in total (25 in LPD, 84 in OPD), only including 104 cancer cases without clearly histopathological types reported. Chen et al. involved identified 102 patients having undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of periampullary tumors, bile duct carcinoma, intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and pancreatic head cancer between January 2013 and May 2017. We believe these two studies should not be included in the meta-analysis to provide the conclusion.

Third, they demonstrated that LPD resulted in a higher rate of R0 resection compared with OPD. The resulted was showed in Fig. 3 in their study (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.85–1.57, p = 0.36). Since the P value was greater than 0.05 the result indicated there was no significant difference between two approaches in R0 resection. Therefore, we believe the conclusion of LPD in R0 resection was incorrect.

In addition, according to the methods of Wan et al. [6], medians with ranges could be converted into means with standard deviations, which should be calculated to pooled the results in the analysis, including R0 resection, estimated blood loss and hospital stay. We suggested the outcomes may be different if they pooled all available data.

Reading of the abstract or failure to analyze the paper in detail may provide the reader with the impression that LPD is equivalent to OPD with respect to overall survival and results in better perioperative clinical outcomes for patients with PDAC whereas we believe this is not the case. The paper does not demonstrate convincingly that LPD introduces equivalent or even improved outcomes compared to OPD, especially for PDAC.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

LPD:

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy;

OPD:

Open pancreaticoduodenectomy;

PDAC:

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma;

OR:

Odds ratio

References

  1. 1.

    Jiang YL, Zhang RC, Zhou YC. Comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE, Prinz RA, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Winchester DJ, Marsh RD, Stocker SJ, Baker MS. Early National Experience with laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy and open Pancreaticoduodenectomy from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(1):175–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kantor O, Talamonti MS, Sharpe S, Lutfi W, Winchester DJ, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Prinz RA, Baker MS. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma provides short-term oncologic outcomes and long-term overall survival rates similar to those for open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2017;213(3):512–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Speicher PJ, Nussbaum DP, White RR, Zani S, Mosca PJ, Blazer DG 3rd, Clary BM, Pappas TN, Tyler DS, Perez A. Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):4014–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Chen XM, Sun DL, Zhang Y. Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with uncinated process approach: a comparative study evaluating perioperative outcomes (retrospective cohort study). Int J Surg. 2018;51:170–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 3332019166). The funding was used for searching data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RS contributed to the conception and design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafted manuscript, critically revised manuscript. RS, YFZ, and ZS critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rui Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, R., Zhang, Y. & Su, Z. Comment on ‘comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis’. BMC Cancer 20, 327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06830-4

Download citation