BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS: To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP – 72,4% versus LDP – 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

A lack of reliable early diagnostic tools represents a major challenge in the management of pancreatic cancer (PCa), as the disease is often only identified after it reaches an advanced stage. This highlights the urgent need to identify biomarkers that can be used for the early detection, staging, treatment monitoring, and prognosis of PCa. A novel approach called liquid biopsy has emerged in recent years, which is a less- or non-invasive procedure since it focuses on plasmatic biomarkers such as DNA and RNA. In the blood of patients with cancer, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free nucleic acids (cfNAs) have been identified such as DNA, mRNA, and non-coding RNA (miRNA and lncRNA). The presence of these molecules encouraged researchers to investigate their potential as biomarkers. In this article, we focused on circulating cfNAs as plasmatic biomarkers of PCa and analyzed their advantages compared to traditional biopsy methods.

BACKGROUND: Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is an uncommon pancreatic tumor, which is more frequent in young adult women. Familial adenomatous polyposis is a genetic condition associated with colorectal cancer that also increases the risk of developing other tumors as well. AIM: The aim of this study was to discuss the association of familial adenomatous polyposis with solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas, which is very rare. METHODS: We report two cases of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who developed solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas of the pancreas and were submitted to laparoscopic pancreatic resections with splenic preservation (one male and one female). RESULTS: ß-catenin and Wnt signaling pathways have been found to play an important role in the tumorigenesis of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas, and their constitutive activation due to adenomatous polyposis coli gene inactivation in familial adenomatous polyposis may explain the relationship between familial adenomatous polyposis and solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. CONCLUSION: Colonic resection must be prioritized, and a minimally invasive approach is preferred to minimize the risk of developing desmoid tumor. Pancreatic resection usually does not require extensive lymphadenectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas, and splenic preservation is feasible.

BACKGROUND: The unresectable pancreatic head tumors develop obstructive jaundice and cholestasis during follow-up. Cholestasis is associated with complications and treatment options are endoscopic stenting (ES) and biliary bypass surgery (BBS). AIMS: The aim of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of biliary bypass surgery (BBS) and endoscopic stenting (ES) for cholestasis in advanced pancreas cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of patients with cholestasis and unresectable or metastatic pancreas cancer, treated with BBS or ES. Short and long-term outcomes were evaluated. We considered the need for hospital readmission due to biliary complications as treatment failure. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (BBS=43; ES=50) were included in the study. BBS was associated with a higher demand for postoperative intensive care (37 vs.10%; p=0.002, p<0.050), longer intensive care unit stay (1.44 standard deviation±2.47 vs. 0.66±2.24 days; p=0.004, p<0.050), and longer length of hospital stay (7.95±2.99 vs. 4.29±5.50 days; p<0.001, p<0.050). BBS had a higher risk for procedure-related complications (23 vs. 8%; p=0.049, p0.050). ES was independently associated with a higher risk for treatment failure than BBS on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 3.97; p=0.009, p<0.050). CONCLUSIONS: BBS is associated with longer efficacy than ES for treating cholestasis in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the BBS is associated with prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays and higher demand for intensive care.

Background Most complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are due to pancreatic fistula (PF). Therefore, predicting PF is important to individualize treatment. The aim of this study is to develop a preoperative nomogram to predict PF after PD. Methods From January 2009 to January 2018, patients that underwent PD were reviewed. After univariate analyses, variables with p < 0.1 were selected for a multivariate analysis. Variables with p < 0.05 were then included in the nomogram, which was internally validated in a different set of patients. Results Out of 180 patients evaluated, 19.4% experienced PF. Risk factors for PF were male gender (OR = 2.89), higher BMI (OR = 1.14) and pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm (OR = 3.52). Weight loss greater than 10% was protective against PF (OR = 0.16). Using these four variables, a preoperative nomogram was built. The nomogram performed well in the validation set (n = 82 patients, 25.6% with PF) with an area under the ROC curve of 0.798. Conclusions male gender, main pancreatic duct ≤ 3 mm and higher BMI are risk factors for PF, while weight loss is protective for it. With these variables, it was possible to build a nomogram that accurately predicts the occurrence of PF.