Portland Providence Cancer Center

Portland, OR, United States

Portland Providence Cancer Center

Portland, OR, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Barkun J.,McGill University | Fisher W.,Baylor College of Medicine | Davidson G.,University of Washington | Wakabayashi G.,Ageo Central General Hospital | And 20 more authors.
HPB | Year: 2017

The IHPBA/AHPBA-sponsored 2016 minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) conference held on April 20th, 2016 included a session designed to evaluate what would be the most appropriate scientific contribution to help define the increasing role of MIPR internationally. Participants in the conference reviewed the assessment of numerous pertinent scientific designs including randomized controlled trial (RCT), pragmatic international RCT, registry-RCT, non-RCT with propensity matching, and various types of clinical registries including those aiming to create a quality improvement data system or a learning health care system. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these designs, the status of trials which are currently recruiting patients, and pragmatic considerations were evaluated. A recommendation was made to establish a clinical registry to collect data prospectively from around the world to assess current practices and provide a framework for future studies in MIPR. © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.


Kendrick M.L.,Mayo Medical School | Boggi U.,University of Pisa | Walsh R.M.,Cleveland Clinic | Zeh H.J.,University of Pittsburgh | And 16 more authors.
HPB | Year: 2017

Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly performed with several institutional series and comparative studies reported. The aim was to conduct an assessment of the best-evidence and expert opinion on the current status and future challenges of MIPD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed and best-evidence presented at a State-of-the-Art conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection. Expert panel discussion and audience response activity was used to assess perceived value and future direction. Results From 582 studies, 26 comparative trials of MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) were assessed for perioperative outcomes. There were no randomized controlled trials and all available comparative studies were determined of low quality. Several observational and case-matched studies demonstrate longer operative times, but less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay for MIPD. Registry-based studies demonstrate increased mortality rates after MIPD in low-volume centers. Oncologic assessment demonstrates comparable outcomes of MIPD. Expert opinion supports ongoing evaluation of MIPD. Conclusion MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed. © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.


Conlon K.C.,Trinity College Dublin | de Rooij T.,Amsterdam Medical Center | van Hilst J.,Amsterdam Medical Center | Abu Hidal M.,University of Southampton | And 22 more authors.
HPB | Year: 2017

Background The number of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed for benign or malignant disease, have increased in recent years. However, there is limited information regarding cost/value implications. Methods An international conference evaluating MIPR was held during the 12th Bi-Annual International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) World Congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on April 20th, 2016. This manuscript summarizes the presentations that reviewed current topics in cost and value as they pertain to MIPR. Results Compared to the open approach, MIPR's are associated with higher operative costs but lower postoperative costs. However, measurements of patient value (defined as improvement in both quantity and quality of life) and financial value (using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) are required to determine the true value at societal level. Conclusion Challenges remain as to how the potential benefits, both to the patient and the healthcare system as a whole, are measured. Research comparing MIPR versus other techniques for pancreatectomy will require appropriate and valid measurement tools, some of which are yet to be refined. Nonetheless, the experience to date would support the continued development of MIPR by experienced surgeons in high-volume pancreatic centers, married with appropriate review and recalibration. © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.


Montagnini A.L.,University of Sao Paulo | Rosok B.I.,University of Oslo | Asbun H.J.,Mayo Medical School | Barkun J.,McGill University | And 13 more authors.
HPB | Year: 2017

Background There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. Methods After formal literature review for “minimally invasive pancreatic surgery” term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. Results A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine “approach + resection” (e.g. “laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine “first approach + resection” with “second approach + reconstruction” (e.g. “laparoscopic central pancreatectomy” with “open pancreaticojejunostomy”) and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is “first approach” + “converted to” + “second approach” + “resection” (e.g. “robot-assisted” “converted to open” “pancreatoduodenectomy”) Conclusions The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR. © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.


Vollmer C.M.,University of Pennsylvania | Asbun H.J.,Mayo Medical School | Barkun J.,McGill University | Besselink M.G.,University of Amsterdam | And 12 more authors.
HPB | Year: 2017

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR. © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.

Loading Portland Providence Cancer Center collaborators
Loading Portland Providence Cancer Center collaborators