BackgroundLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.ResultsTen studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

No abstract

BackgroundIn patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation, pathological complete response in the surgical specimen is associated with favourable long-term oncologic outcome. Based on this observation, nonoperative management is being explored in the subset of patients with clinical complete response. Whereas, patients with poor response have a high risk of local and distant recurrence, and appear to receive no benefit from standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Therefore, in order to develop alternative treatment strategies for non responding patients, predictive and prognostic factors are highly needed. Accumulating clinical observations indicate that elevated platelet count is associated with poor outcome in different type of tumors. In this study we investigated the predictive and prognostic impact of elevated platelet count on pathological response and long-term oncologic outcome in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation.MethodsA total of 965 patients were selected from prospectively maintained databases of seven Centers within the SICO Colorectal Cancer Network. Patients were divided into two groups based on a pre-neoadjuvant chemoradiation platelet count cut-off value of 300 × 109/L identified by receiver operating characteristic curve considering complete pathological response as the outcome.ResultsComplete pathological response rate was lower in patients with elevated platelet count (12.8% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.001). Mean follow-up was 50.1 months. Comparing patients with elevated platelet count with patients with not elevated platelet count, 5-year overall survival was 69.5% vs.76.5% (p = 0.016), and 5-year disease free survival was 63.0% vs. 68.9% (p = 0.019). Local recurrence rate was higher in patients with elevated platelet count (11.1% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.001), as higher was the occurrence of distant metastasis (23.9% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.007). At multivariate analysis of potential prognostic factors EPC was independently associated with worse overall survival (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.06–1.86), and disease free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07–1.76).ConclusionsIn locally advanced rectal cancer elevated platelet count before neoadjuvant chemoradiation is a negative predictive and prognostic factor which might help to identify subsets of patients with more aggressive tumors to be proposed for alternative therapeutic strategies.

Complete absence of nodes assessed was associated with worse prognosis compared to node-negative and node-positive patients. In node-negative patients number of nodes was not associated to OS and CIDD. Based on data from this large population of irradiated RC, number of nodes assessed has no prognostic impact in node-negative patients.