METHODS: Venous blood samples from 46 pathologically confirmed PDAC patients were collected prospectively before surgery and immunoassayed using a specially designed TU-chip™. Captured CTCs were differentiated into epithelial (E), mesenchymal and hybrid (H) phenotypes. A further 45 non-neoplastic healthy donors provided blood for cell line validation study and CTC false positive quantification.
FINDINGS: A validated multivariable model consisting of disjunctively combined CTC phenotypes: "H-CTC≥15.0 CTCs/2ml OR E-CTC≥11.0 CTCs/2ml" generated an optimal prediction of metastasis with a sensitivity of 1.000 (95% CI 0.889-1.000) and specificity of 0.886 (95% CI 0.765-0.972). The adjusted Kaplan-Meier median OS constructed using Cox proportional-hazard models and stratified for E-CTC
OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-making program and analyze multi-institutional outcomes of RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with level II IVCT were included from eight Chinese urological centers, and underwent RAC-IVCT (30 patients) or RAT-IVCT (60 patients) from June 2013 to January 2019.
SURGICAL PROCEDURE: The surgical strategy was based on IVCT imaging characteristics. RAT-IVCT was performed with standardized cavotomy, thrombectomy, and IVC reconstruction. RAC-IVCT was mainly performed in patients with extensive IVC wall invasion when the collateral blood vessels were well-established. For right-sided RCC, the IVC from the infrarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was stapled. For left-sided RCC, the IVC from the suprarenal vein to the infrahepatic veins was removed and caudal IVC reconstruction was performed to ensure the right renal vein returned through the IVC collaterals.
MEASUREMENTS: Clinicopathological, operative, and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All procedures were successfully performed without open conversion. The median operation time (268 vs 190 min) and estimated blood loss (1500 vs 400 ml) were significantly greater for RAC-IVCT versus RAT-IVCT (both p < 0.001). IVC invasion was a risk factor for progression-free and overall survival at midterm follow-up. Large-volume and long-term follow-up studies are needed.
CONCLUSIONS: RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT represents an alternative minimally invasive approach for selected RCC patients with level II IVCT. Selection of RAC-IVCT or RAT-IVCT is mainly based on preoperative IVCT imaging characteristics, including the presence of IVC wall invasion, the affected kidney, and establishment of the collateral circulation.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we found that robotic surgeries for level II inferior vena cava thrombus were feasible and safe. Preoperative imaging played an important role in establishing an appropriate surgical plan.