4.7 Article

The Impact of Obesity on Outcomes Following Pancreatectomy for Malignancy

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages 2565-2569

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0573-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Obesity has previously been shown to correlate with higher stage and decreased survival in pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of obesity on operative outcomes, recurrence, and overall survival. Methods. A review of our 1345 patient prospective hepatopancreaticobiliary database was performed to identify patients undergoing pancreatic resection from January 1991 to August 2008 for adenocarcinoma. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2). Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon, t test, and chi-square methods. Survival was analyzed using log-rank analysis. Postoperative complications were assessed using a 5-point scale. P < 05 was considered significant. Results. Of 306 patients undergoing pancreatic resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma examined, 68 were defined as obese. There was no significant difference seen in length of stay, operative time, tumor size, or node status. Obese patients had a higher operative blood loss (median 650 vs. 400 mL, P = .0008). Obese patients were more likely to suffer postoperative complications (67.6% vs. 50.4%, P = .01). There was no significant difference seen in disease-free survival or overall survival (22.1 months for obese vs. 25.6 months for nonobese, P = .5; 19.8 months for obese vs. 23.5 months for nonobese, P = .46). Conclusion. Obese patients had a higher rate and greater severity of postoperative complications, with increased operative blood loss. However, obese patients did not demonstrate any significant difference in specific oncologic factors or survival. These data suggest an equivalent biologic effect of obesity on pancreatic cancer survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available