Skip Navigation Archive: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Archive: Agency for Healthcare Research Quality
Archival print banner

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to for current information.

Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer (Text Version)

Slide presentation from the AHRQ 2011 conference.

On September 19, 2011, A.J Moser and Herbert Zeh made this presentation at the 2011 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (9 MB). Plugin Software Help.

Slide 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 (UPMC)

Slide 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.

Slide 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.

Slide 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?

Image of a journal article title and a figure from the article.

Slide 5

Why develop a minimally invasive approach to Pancreas?

  • "Prophylactic" pancreatectomy:
    • IPMN = polyp of the pancreas.

Images: Polyps of the pancreas are shown.

Slide 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.

Slide 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—it's 3D like Avatar!

Slide 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.

Slide 9

UPMC Robotic Pancreas Program

Flowchart showing breakdown of studies.


  • RAPD N=85.
  • RACP N=43.
  • RATP  N=5.
  • RADP N=60.
  • RAF N=2.

Slide 10

Robot-Assisted Minimally-Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Is Superior to the Laparoscopic Technique

Slide 11


  • 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 RADP to 94 consecutive historical control LDP.

Slide 12

Table 1. Outcomes Following Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

Age (years)59±1659±130.95
Female Gender61 (65%)20 (67%)0.86
Caucasian91 (97%)26 (87%)0.058
BMI (kg/m2)29.0±7.127.9±5.10.434
ASA Score  0.8
   I/II42 (45%)11 (37%)0.41
   III/IV51 (55%)19 (63%)0.41
Previous abdominal surgery48 (51%)22 (73%)<0.05
CT tumor size (cm)2.9±1.92.6±1.40.45
Endoscopic ultrasound size (cm)2.6±1.62.7±1.30.985

Values represent mean ±SD, or n (%)

Slide 13

Table 2. Pathologic Indications for Distal Pancreatectomy

Final HistologyLaporoscopic
Pancreatic duodenal adenocarcinoma14 (15%)13 (43%)<0.05
Mucinous cystic neoplasm30 (31%)4 (13%)<0.05
Neuroendocrine tumor21 (22%)9 (27%)0.46
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm11 (12%)5 (17%)0.534
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm6 (6.4%)_0.33
Other12 (13%) §1 (3) ††0.184

§ Includes autoimmune pancreatitis (n=2), chronic pancreatitis (n=1), serous cystadenoma (n=3), pseudocyst (n=1), mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (n=1), spindle cell lesion, (n=1), benign epithelial cyst (n=2) and oligocystic adenoma (n=1).
†† Includes lymphoepithelial cyst (n=1)

Slide 14

Table 3. Perioperative Outcomes Following Laparoscopic and Robotic-assisted Distal Pancreatectomy

Outcome ParameterLDP N=94RADP N=30p-value
Procedure duration (min ± SD)372±141293±93<0.01*
Planned splenectomy77 (82)28 (93%)0.157
Estimated blood loss (ml)150 (100, 300)150 (100, 300)0.688
Frequency of blood transfusion (%)2.25±1.362.33±0.580.921
Median EBL (ml) in upper quartile (>75th percentile for blood loss)550 (400, 650)375 (300, 550)<0.05
Converted to open15 (16) 0 (0%) <0.05*
Postoperative admission to ICU31 (33)7 (23)0.370
Pancreatic fistula39 (41)14 (46)0.676
   ISGPF Grade A23 (24)6 (20)NS
   ISGPF Grade B11 (12)4 (13)NS
   ISGPF Grade C5 (5)4 (13)NS
90-day morbidity  0.658
   Minor (Clavien 1/2)¥47 (50)14 (46) 
   Major (Clavien 3/4)¥13 (14)6 (20) 
Length of stay, days7.1±4.06.1±1.70.183
90-day readmission22 (23)11 (37)0.162
30-day mortality1 (1.1)0 (0%)1.0

Normally-distributed values are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%); otherwise median (25th, 75th percentile) as interquartile range (IQ).

¥Clavien classification of surgical complications.16

Slide 15

Table 5. Effects of Conversion During LDP on Perioperative Outcome

CharacteristicsConverted LDP
Completed LDP
Age54 (46, 69)62 (51, 72)0.206
Gender (F)9 (60)76 (65.82)0.770
BMI28 (27.4, 33)27 (24.5, 32.9)0.474
ASA (III/IV)8 (53)43 (55)1.00
OR duration345 (268, 593)341 (250, 452)0.557
Splenectomy15 (100)62 (79)0.065
EBL425 (300, 700)150 (100, 300)<0.001*
Frequency of blood transfusion4 (27)8 (10)0.096
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma6 (40.0)8 (10.13)<0.01*
Tumor size (cm)4 (3.5, 4.5)3 (2, 4)0.3
R0 Margin status (PDA only)3 (50.0)4 (50.0)1
Lymph nodes harvested (PDA)9 (7, 11)17 (10, 19)0.845
ICU admission, days8 (53.33)23 (29.11)0.079
Pancreatic fistula7 (46.67)32 (41.03)0.778
Length hospital stay, days8 (6, 10)6 (5, 7)<0.01*

Normally-distributed values are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%); otherwise median (25th, 75th percentile) as interquartile range (IQ).

Slide 16

Table 4. Pathologic Outcomes Following Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Frequency (n, %)14 (19)13 (43)<0.005*
Tumor size (cm)3.4±1.63.1±1.20.604
R1 margin status7 (50)0 (0)<0.01*
Nodal harvest (median, IQR)9 (7, 11)19 (17, 24)<0.01*

Normally-distributed values are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%); otherwise median (25th, 75th percentile) as interquartile range (IQ).

Slide 17

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.

Slide 18

UPMC Robotic Pancreas Program

Repeat of Slide 9.

Slide 19

Image: Titles and authors for two articles on robot-assisted pancreative resection and reconstruction are shown.

Slide 20

Table 1: Demographics of Entire RAPD Cohort

Age, mean ±SD (range)68±16 (27-85)
Gender Female26 (52%)
Prior surgery29 (58%)
BMI, mean ±SD (range)27±5 (19-37)
Medical Comorbidities 
   Multiple Major11 (22%)
   Major17 (34%)
   Minor2 (4%)
   None20 (40%)
ASA Score 
   II21 (42%)
   III28 (56%)
   IV1 (2%)

Data are presented as mean ±SD, or n (%).

Slide 21

Table 2: Pathologic Indications for RAPD

Final HistologyN (%)
Malignant37 (74%)
Pancreatic duodenal adenocarcinoma14 (28%)
Neuroendocrine tumor10 (20%)
Ampullary adenocarcinoma9 (18%)
Cholangiocarcinoma2 (4%)
Pseudopapillary neoplasm2 (4%)
Premalignant12 (23%)
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm10 (19%)
Mucinous cystic neoplasm1 (2%)
Duodenal adenoma1 2%)
Benign1 (3%)
Oligocystic serous cystadenoma1 (2%)

Slide 22

Table 3: Perioperative Outcomes of RAPD Cohort

Procedure duration (min), median (IQR)568 (536-629)
Converted to open8 (16%)
Blood loss (mL), median (IQR)350 (150-625)
Blood transfusion11 (22%)
Pancreatic duct (mm), median (IQR)3.0 (3.0-5.0)
Soft pancreatic remnant36 (72%)
Length of stay (d), median (IQR)10.0 (8.0-13.0)

Slide 23

Table 4: Pathologic Outcomes Following RAPD for Invasive Periampullary Adenocarcinoma

CharacteristicsPDA, Amp, CCA
N (%)25 (50%)
TNM* (n=25) 
   T1N02 (8%)
   T2N04 (16%)
   T3N06 (24%)
   T3N110 (40%)
   T4N12 (8%)
AJCC Stage 
   1A2 (8%)
   1B4 (16%)
   IIA6 (24%)
   IIB13 (52%)
Tumor size (cm)2.7 cm, IQR 0.7
Lymph nodes harvested18, IQR 5
R0 margin33 (89%)
R1 margin4 (11%)
Adjuvant tx indicated (n=15)11 (73.3)
Adjuvant tx duration (wks)11.5 (8.8-12.5)

Data presented as median (IQR) or n (%) for PDA, AMP, and CCA only.

Slide 24

Table 5: Postoperative Complications Following RAPD

Pancreatic fistula11 (22%)
   Grade A5 (10%)
   Grade B2 (4%)
   Grade C4 (8%)
30-day morbidity 
   Minor (Clavien I/II)13 (26%)
   Major (Clavien III/IV)15 (30%)
Reoperation3 (6%)
90-day readmission15 (30%)
90-day mortality1 (2%)

Slide 25


  • 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.

Slide 26

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.

Slide 27

UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Program

Slide 28


Images: Photographs of the RAPD equipment are shown.

Slide 29

Tying It All Together...

Slide 30

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.

Slide 31

Case Presentation

Image: MRI of a patient's abdomen are shown.

Slide 32

Case Presentation

Image: A photograph of the removed pancreas section is shown.

Slide 33

Case Presentation (continued)

IMPN of main duct:

  • Uncomplicated Robotic Assisted Pancreaticoduoenectomy.
  • Discharged POD #10.
  • Final Pathology:
    • IPMN with dysplasia.

Slide 34

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.

Slide 35

Image: An MRI of a patient's abdomen is shown.

Slide 36

Case Presentation : #2 (continued)

  • Received six cycles of modified FOLFOX.
  • Repeat Staging demonstrated partial response in tumor and no metastatic disease.

Slide 37

Image: An MRI of a patient's abdomen is shown.

Slide 38

Case Presentation: #2 (continued)

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

Slide 39

Case Presentation: #2 (continued)

  • Received additional three cycles of modified FOLFOX.
  • Alive and disease free at 24 months.
Page last reviewed October 2014
Internet Citation: Improving Patient Centered Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer (Text Version). October 2014. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.


The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.


AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care