4.5 Article

Impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula on long-term oncologic outcomes after pancreatic resection

Journal

HPB
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 1269-1276

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.12.010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Na-tional Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National In-stitutes of Health [5U54GM104942-04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study on POP patients after pancreatic resection revealed that patients with grade C POP had a significantly decreased overall survival and were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, further contributing to a decrease in survival time.
Background: The short-term morbidity associated with post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is well established, however data regarding the long-term impact are lacking. We aim to characterize long-term oncologic outcomes of POPF after pancreatic resection through a single institution, retrospective study of pancreatic resections performed for adenocarcinoma from 2009 to 2016. Methods: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, logistic regression, and multivariate analysis (MVA) were used to evaluate impact of POPF on overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Results: 767 patients were included. 82 (10.6%) developed grade B (n = 67) or C (n = 15) POPF. Grade C POPF resulted in decreased OS when compared to no POPF (20.22 vs 26.33 months, p = 0.027) and to grade B POPF (20.22 vs. 26.87 months, p = 0.049). POPF patients were less likely to receive AC than those without POPF (59.5% vs 74.9%, p = 0.003) and grade C POPF were less likely to receive AC than all others (26.7% vs 74.2%, p = 0.0001). Conclusion: POPF patients are less likely to receive AC and more likely to have delay in time to AC. These factors are exacerbated in grade C POPF and likely contribute to decreased OS. These findings validate the clinical significance of the ISGPF definition of POPF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available