No abstract

Background Duodenal adenocarcinoma treatment consists of either simple or radical surgical resection. Existing evidence suggests similar survival outcomes between the two but is limited by small numbers and single-institution analysis. We aim to compare survival after partial versus radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Using NCDB results from 2004 to 2014, we compared patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma undergoing partial resection (n = 1247) and radical resection (n = 1240) by age, sex, facility type, facility location, cancer stage, cancer grade, lymph node sampling, node status, tumor size, margin status, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy using chi-square analysis. Survival was compared using propensity matching. Results Patients undergoing partial resection had overall earlier cancer stage, more favorable tumor grade, and were less likely to undergo lymph node sampling and neoadjuvant therapy. When overall survival was compared between the 2 propensity-matched groups, the median survival was 46.7 months after partial resection and 43.2 months after radical resection ( P = .329), and overall survival was similar between the 2 groups ( P = .894). The use of adjuvant therapy demonstrated improved survival over either surgery alone ( P < .0001, P = .0037). Conclusion Partial resection did not demonstrate worse survival outcomes than radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma. The use of adjuvant therapy in addition to surgery demonstrated improved survival regardless of surgery type and played a larger role in survival than the type of surgery. Our findings provide evidence to support the continued use of both partial and radical surgical resections to treat duodenal malignancy.

No abstract

Background Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications. Methods Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data. Results In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001). Discussion Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons’ impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

Introduction Adjuvant therapy is recommended in duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA), but the role of neoadjuvant therapy remains undefined. We compared the effect of neoadjuvant therapy to adjuvant therapy on overall survival, 30-day, and 90-day mortality following the resection of DA. Methods A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database was performed on patients with DA who received either adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in addition to surgical resection. Propensity score matching was done for patient, socioeconomic, and tumor characteristics. Overall survival, 30-day, and 90-day mortality were compared. Results A total of 112 patients were identified; 55 received adjuvant therapy; 57 received neoadjuvant therapy. There was no difference in 30-day (0% vs. 1.75%; P = 1.00), 90-day mortality (1.82% vs. 7.02%; P = .36), nor overall survival (1 yr: 86% vs. 76; 3 yr: 49% vs. 46%; 5 yr: 42% vs. 39%; P = .28). Conclusions There was no difference in overall survival after propensity score matched analysis.