Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Shutao Pan, Tingting Qin, Taoyuan Yin, Xianjun Yu, Jing Li, Jun Liu, Wenxing Zhao, Xuemin Chen, Dewei Li, Jianhua Liu, Jingdong Li, Yahui Liu, Feng Zhu, Min Wang, Hang Zhang, Renyi Qin, Minimally Invasive Treatment Group in the Pancreatic Disease Branch of China’s International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medicine and Healthcare (MITG-P-CPAM), Shutao Pan, Tingting Qin, Taoyuan Yin, Xianjun Yu, Jing Li, Jun Liu, Wenxing Zhao, Xuemin Chen, Dewei Li, Jianhua Liu, Jingdong Li, Yahui Liu, Feng Zhu, Min Wang, Hang Zhang, Renyi Qin, Minimally Invasive Treatment Group in the Pancreatic Disease Branch of China’s International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medicine and Healthcare (MITG-P-CPAM)

Abstract

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is recommended as the optimal operation for resectable pancreatic head cancer. Minimally invasive surgery, which initially emerged as hybrid-laparoscopy and recently developed into total laparoscopy surgery, has been widely used for various abdominal surgeries. However, controversy persists regarding whether laparoscopic PD (LPD) is inferior to open PD (OPD) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment. Further studies, especially randomised clinical trials, are warranted to compare these two surgical techniques.

Methods and analysis: The TJDBPS07 study is designed as a prospective, randomised controlled, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre noninferiority study. All participating pancreatic surgical centres comprise specialists who have performed no less than 104 LPDs and OPDs, respectively. A total of 200 strictly selected PD candidates diagnosed with PDAC will be randomised to receive LPD or OPD. The primary outcome is the 5-year overall survival rate, whereas the secondary outcomes include overall survival, disease-free survival, 90-day mortality, complication rate, comprehensive complication index, length of stay and intraoperative indicators. We hypothesise that LPD is not inferior to OPD for the treatment of resectable PDAC. The enrolment schedule is estimated to be 2 years and follow-up for each patient will be 5 years.

Ethics and dissemination: This study received approval from the Tongji Hospital Ethics Committee of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and monitor from an independent third-party organisation. Results of this trial will be presented in international meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number: NCT03785743.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Gastrointestinal tumours; Pancreatic disease; Pancreatic surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for TJDBPS07. CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; LPD, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy; OPD, open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:7–30. 10.3322/caac.21590
    1. Mizrahi JD, Surana R, Valle JW, et al. . Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2020;395:2008–20. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30974-0
    1. Are C, Dhir M, Ravipati L. History of pancreaticoduodenectomy: early misconceptions, initial milestones and the pioneers. HPB 2011;13:377–84. 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00305.x
    1. Zhang Y-H, Zhang C-W, Hu Z-M, et al. . Pancreatic cancer: open or minimally invasive surgery? World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:7301–10. 10.3748/wjg.v22.i32.7301
    1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. . Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–904. 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
    1. Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc 1994;8:408–10. 10.1007/BF00642443
    1. Liu M, Ji S, Xu W, et al. . Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: are the best times coming? World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:81. 10.1186/s12957-019-1624-6
    1. Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Meydan Ömer, et al. . Evidence map of pancreatic Surgery-A living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2021;170:1517–24. 10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.023
    1. Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, et al. . Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg 2017;104:1443–50. 10.1002/bjs.10662
    1. Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, et al. . Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2018;268:731–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002893
    1. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. . Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:199–207. 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30004-4
    1. Wang M, Li D, Chen R, et al. . Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6:438–47. 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00054-6
    1. Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, et al. . Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2020;271:54–66. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003309
    1. Wang M, Peng B, Liu J, et al. . Practice patterns and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in China: a retrospective multicenter analysis of 1029 patients. Ann Surg 2021;273:145–53. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003190
    1. Chen K, Zhou Y, Jin W, et al. . Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic outcomes and long-term survival. Surg Endosc 2020;34:1948–58. 10.1007/s00464-019-06968-8
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. . Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869. 10.1136/bmj.c869
    1. Asbun HJ, Conlon K, Fernandez-Cruz L, et al. . When to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy in the absence of positive histology? a consensus statement by the International Study group of pancreatic surgery. Surgery 2014;155:887–92. 10.1016/j.surg.2013.12.032
    1. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. . The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187–96. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
    1. Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. . The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 2017;161:584–91. 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
    1. Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. . Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study group of liver surgery. Surgery 2011;149:680–8. 10.1016/j.surg.2010.12.002
    1. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. . Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international Study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 2007;142:20–5. 10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001
    1. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. . Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007;142:761–8. 10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005
    1. Besselink MG, van Rijssen LB, Bassi C, et al. . Definition and classification of chyle leak after pancreatic operation: a consensus statement by the International Study Group on pancreatic surgery. Surgery 2017;161:365–72. 10.1016/j.surg.2016.06.058
    1. Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. . The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 2013;258:1–7. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732
    1. Kuesters S, Chikhladze S, Makowiec F, et al. . Oncological outcome of laparoscopically assisted pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma in a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2018;55:162–6. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.026
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . Spirit 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586. 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. Zhang H, Feng Y, Zhao J, et al. . Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (TJDBPS01): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open 2020;10:e033490. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033490
    1. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. . Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:439–57. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017
    1. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v5.0. Available: [Accessed 20 Jun 2020].
    1. Gandaglia G, Ghani KR, Sood A, et al. . Effect of minimally invasive surgery on the risk for surgical site infections: results from the National surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) database. JAMA Surg 2014;149:1039–44. 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.292
    1. Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. . Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:1983–92. 10.1001/jama.2019.5359
    1. Kitano S, Inomata M, Mizusawa J, et al. . Survival outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:261–8. 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30207-2
    1. Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE, et al. . Hepatobiliary cancers, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:541–65. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0022
    1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. . Colon cancer, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:329–59. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012
    1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. . Rectal cancer, version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:874–901. 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0061
    1. Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Bakkum-Gamez JN, et al. . Ovarian cancer, version 2.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:191–226. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0007
    1. Koh W-J, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. . Cervical cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:64–84. 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001
    1. Neoptolemos JP, Kleeff J, Michl P, et al. . Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;15:333–48. 10.1038/s41575-018-0005-x
    1. Kang CM, Lee WJ. Is laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy feasible for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? Cancers 2020;12:3430. 10.3390/cancers12113430
    1. Peng L, Zhou Z, Cao Z, et al. . Long-Term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2019;29:759–69. 10.1089/lap.2018.0683
    1. Croome KP, Farnell MB, Que FG, et al. . Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: oncologic advantages over open approaches? Ann Surg 2014;260:633-8; discussion 638-40. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000937
    1. Stauffer JA, Coppola A, Villacreses D, et al. . Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results at a single institution. Surg Endosc 2017;31:2233–41. 10.1007/s00464-016-5222-1
    1. Zhou W, Jin W, Wang D, et al. . Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Cancer Commun 2019;39:66. 10.1186/s40880-019-0410-8
    1. Kwon J, Song KB, Park SY, et al. . Comparison of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Cancers 2020;12. 10.3390/cancers12040982. [Epub ahead of print: 15 04 2020].
    1. World Medical Association . World Medical association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren