1 / 39

Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer

Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer. A. James Moser, MD Herbert J. Zeh , III, MD Co-Directors, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center Division of Surgical Oncology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Surgery.

ann
Download Presentation

Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer A. James Moser, MD Herbert J. Zeh, III, MD Co-Directors, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center Division of Surgical Oncology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

  2. Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Surgery • Develop “personalized” surgical treatment • Modeling of outcomes • Theranostics • Re-thinking clinical trial design • Explore minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery program

  3. Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Surgery • Reduced perioperative morbidity • Maintain quality of life • Decreased peri-operative blood loss and transfusion • Increased rate of adjuvant therapy

  4. Why develop a minimally invasive approach to Pancreas? • Pancreatic Cancer remains dormant for 10-12 years before clinically detectable? • Early detection may allow less invasive surgery to be curative?

  5. Why develop a minimally invasive approach to Pancreas? • “prophylactic” pancreatectomy • IPMN=polyp of the pancreas

  6. Laparoscopic PD • Adequate for ablative surgery • For procedures requiring extensive reconstruction the technique is modified to meet the technological limitations • Poor ergonomics for the surgeon • Limited range of motion of instruments • Two dimensional ! • Wouldn’t do open surgery with one eye

  7. Robotic Pancreas Resections • Advantages of Robotic Surgery • Magnification 20x-30x • Near 360 degrees range of motion in instruments • Elimination of tremor / improved dexterity • Stereotactic binocular vision—its 3D like Avatar!

  8. Goals of Robotic Pancreas Program at UPMC • Major objectives • Reproduce open technique and outcomes • Widely applicable • Quality Assurance • Rule out Disadvantages • Equivalent safety? • Learning curve and time investment • Explore Potential Advantages • Decrease peri-operative morbidity/blood transfusions • Earlier adjuvant chemotherapy

  9. UPMC Robotic Pancreas Program9/17/2011 N=195 RAPD N=85 RACP N=43 RATP N=5 RADP N=60 RAF N=2

  10. ROBOT-ASSISTED MINIMALLY-INVASIVE DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY IS SUPERIOR TO THE LAPAROSCOPIC TECHNIQUE

  11. Methods • Retrospective analysis of all minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomies at UPMC between January 2004 and February 2011. • Compared the peri-operative outcomes of our first 30 RADPto 94 consecutive historical control LDP.

  12. v

  13. Comparison of Robotic (RADP) and Laparoscopic (LDP) Approach to Distal Pancreatectomy • Robotic assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatic resection appears comparable to laparoscopic approach in safety and feasibility • RADP was associated with decreased frequency of conversion to open , increased number of total Lymph node harvested, higher rate of R0 resections and decreased significant blood loss • These data suggest that use of the Robotic Platform may allow more patients to successfully undergo minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy • Larger multicenter studies are needed to validate these findings

  14. UPMC Robotic Pancreas Program9/17/2011 N=195 RAPD N=85 RACP N=43 RATP N=5 RADP N=60 RAF N=2

  15. Conclusions: • Robotic assisted Pancreatic resections are currently feasible and safe • Evolution of the technique will likely continue making comparative studies difficult • Multicenter collaborations necessary to study comparative effectiveness

  16. Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery Consortium (MIPSC) • Contributing Members • University of Pittsburgh • Mayo Clinic • Cleveland Clinic • Pisa Italy • Second Annual meeting November 2011 • Goals • Multicenter prospective database • Standardization of procedures • Comparative effectiveness studies

  17. UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Program zehh@upmc.edu moseraj@upmc.edu

  18. RAPD Set up

  19. Tying it all together…

  20. Case Presentation • 76 y/o female symptomatic found to have elevated amylase and lipase after abdominal pain • CT main duct IPMN • Followed for several years • Recent EUS demonstrated increased in disease in head of gland

  21. Case Presentation

  22. Case Presentation

  23. Case Presentation IMPN of main duct • Uncomplicated Robotic Assisted Pancreaticoduoenectomy • Discharged POD #10 • Final Pathology • IPMN with dysplasia

  24. Case Presentation : #2 • 72 y/o male abdominal pain three months, followed by jaundice • CT Large mass in the HOP • Loss of fat plane between mass and PV/SMV • EUS – • Loss of fat plane PV/SMV • ERCP • Double duct • Short metal stent • Cytology • Acinar Cell Carcinoma

  25. Case Presentation : #2 • Received six cycles of modified FOLFOX • Repeat Staging demonstrated partial response in tumor and no metastatic disease

  26. Case Presentation : #2 • Uncomplicated Robotic Assisted Pancreaticoduoenectomy • Discharged POD 5 • Final Pathology • Acinar Cell Carcinoma with significant Rx effect • Negative margins

  27. Case Presentation : #2 • Received additional three cycles of modified FOLFOX • Alive and disease free at 24 months

More Related