Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes
BJS Open , Volume 4 - Issue 5 p. 884- 892
Background: Dutch guidelines indicate that treatment of pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies should be started within 3 weeks of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. This study aimed to assess the impact of time to surgery on oncological outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with pancreatic head and periampullary malignancies included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients scheduled for pancreatoduodenectomy and who were discussed in an MDT meeting from May 2012 to December 2016 were eligible. Time to surgery was defined as days between the final preoperative MDT meeting and surgery, categorized in tertiles (short interval, 18 days or less; intermediate, 19–32 days; long, 33 days or more). Oncological outcomes included overall survival, resection rate and R0 resection rate. Results: A total of 2027 patients were included, of whom 677, 665 and 685 had a short, intermediate and long time interval to surgery respectively. Median time to surgery was 25 (i.q.r. 14–36) days. Longer time to surgery was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 0⋅99, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅87 to 1⋅13; P = 0⋅929), resection rate (relative risk (RR) 0⋅96, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅91 to 1⋅01; P = 0⋅091) or R0 resection rate (RR 1⋅01, 0⋅94 to 1⋅09; P = 0⋅733). Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a long time interval had a lower resection rate (RR 0⋅92, 0⋅85 to 0⋅99; P = 0⋅029). Discussion: A longer time interval between the last MDT meeting and pancreatoduodenectomy did not decrease overall survival.
|Organisation||Department of Pediatric Surgery|
Steen, M.W., van Rijssen, L.B., Festen, S, Busch, ORC, Groot Koerkamp, B, van der Geest, L.G., … Gerhards, M.F. (2020). Impact of time interval between multidisciplinary team meeting and intended pancreatoduodenectomy on oncological outcomes. BJS Open, 4(5), 884–892. doi:10.1002/bjs5.50319