Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base

BACKGROUND

While the use of laparoscopy has increased among patients undergoing colorectal surgery, there is ongoing debate regarding the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopy compared to open low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 2010-2011 NCDB was queried for patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer. Subjects were grouped by laparoscopic (LLAR) versus open (OLAR) technique. Baseline characteristics were compared. Subjects were propensity matched, and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 18,765 patients were identified (34.3% LLAR, 65.7% OLAR). After propensity matching, all baseline variables were highly similar except for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level. Complete resection was more common in patients undergoing LLAR (91.6 vs. 88.9%, p < 0.001), and statistically significant benefits were observed for gross, microscopic, and circumferential (>1 mm) margins (all p < 0.001). There was no difference in median number of lymph nodes obtained (15 vs. 15). Patients undergoing LLAR had shorter lengths of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) without a corresponding increase in 30-day readmission rates (6 vs. 7%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic LAR appears to result in equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach as measured via surrogate endpoints in the NCDB. While these results support the increasing use of laparoscopy in rectal surgery, further data are necessary to assess long-term outcomes.

[Is there a place for single laparoscopic approach in colic surgery?]

INTRODUCTION

This prospective randomized study was performed to determine the place of surgery via single laparoscopic access in modern coloproctology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of right-sided hemicolectomy using multiport laparoscopic-assisted technique (n=48) or single laparoscopic access (n=47) in case of cancer were analyzed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications, severity of pain, postoperative rehabilitation and quality of life. Surgery via single access were characterized by better cosmetic effect, less need for analgesics compared with multiport interventions. However, according to surgeons' opinion operations with single laparoscopic access are more laborious.

CONCLUSION

Thus, single laparoscopic access can't be recommended for routine use in daily practice because of absence of significant advantages in colon resection compared with multiport technique.

Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to have equivalent oncologic outcomes to open colectomy for the management of colon cancer, but its adoption nationally has been slow. This study investigates the prevalence and factors associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

METHODS

Data on patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer at NCCN centers from 2005 to 2010 were obtained from chart review of medical records for the NCCN Outcomes Project and included information on socioeconomic status, insurance coverage, comorbidity, and physician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Associations between receipt of minimally invasive surgery and patient and clinical variables were analyzed with univariate and multivariable logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 4032 patients, diagnosed between September 2005 and December 2010, underwent elective colon or rectal resection for cancer at NCCN centers. Median age of colon cancer patients was 62.6 years, and 49% were men. The percent of colon cancer patients treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 35% in 2006 to 51% in 2010 across all centers but varied statistically significantly between centers. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer patients who had surgery at an NCCN institution were older age (P = .02), male sex (P = .006), fewer comorbidities (P ≤ .001), lower final T-stage (P < .001), median household income greater than or equal to $80000 (P < .001), ECOG performance status = 0 (P = .02), and NCCN institution (P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MIS increased at NCCN centers. However, there was statistically significant variation in adoption of MIS technique among centers.

Intra-operative double-stapled colorectal or coloanal anastomotic complications of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: double-stapled anastomotic complication could result in persistent anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is technically demanding and can be hindered by unexpected intra-operative complications. Among the various intra-operative complications, double-stapled anastomotic complications are more serious and complicated to manage. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of intra-operative double-stapled colorectal or coloanal anastomotic complications on short-term surgical outcomes and persistent leak, and risk factors of intra-operative double-stapled anastomotic complication.

METHODS

Consecutive 363 cases of laparoscopic low anterior resection from August 2004 to November 2012 were analyzed in this study. We retrospectively reviewed intra-operative double-stapled anastomotic complications and compared patient characteristics, surgical data, post-operative clinical data, and pathological data between groups with and without intra-operative double-stapled anastomotic complications. And we analyzed risk factors for double-stapled anastomotic complication.

RESULTS

There were 20 intra-operative double-stapled anastomotic complications among the patients (5.5 %). Operation time was longer (304.8 ± 122.0 vs. 197.1 ± 87.5 min, p = 0.001) and more diversion ileostomy were made (75 vs. 34.7 %, p < 0.001) in the group with double-stapled anastomotic complications. There were no differences in terms of surgical morbidity, conversion rate, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay. However, there was more persistent anastomotic leakage (15 vs. 0.9 %, p = 0.003) in the group with double-stapled anastomotic complications. In univariate analysis, risk factors for double-stapled anastomotic complications were male, T4 stage lesion, and three or more stapler firings.

CONCLUSIONS

The double-stapled anastomotic complications during laparoscopic low anterior resection increased operation time and rate of diversion ileostomy. Although these factors did not adversely affect short-term surgical outcome including post-operative morbidity and anastomotic leakage, double-stapled anastomotic complications could increase persistent anastomotic leakage rate.

Simultaneous total laparoscopic curative resection for synchronous gastric, cecal and rectal cancer: Report of a case

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are often diagnosed simultaneously. Recent technological advances in surgical techniques and devices have enabled the use of laparoscopic approaches for GC and CRC. Laparoscopic resection is expected to increase the number of cases of synchronous gastrointestinal (GI) cancers that meet the indication for laparoscopic surgery, owing to early detection of GI cancers and extended indications for laparoscopic surgery.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We herein report a successful simultaneous total laparoscopic curative resection for synchronous early GC, early cecal cancer and advanced rectal cancer. The total time of the operation was 600min, and the estimated blood loss was 250ml. The patient was discharged on postoperative day (POD) 10 without postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous total laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive, feasible treatment option for synchronous GI cancers.

Introducing an enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery: A single center experience

AIM: To study the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program at a large University Hospital from “pilot study” to “standard of care”.

METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective single centre cohort study. A prospective evaluation of compliance to a protocol based on full application of all ERAS principles, through the progressive steps of its implementation, was performed. Results achieved in the initial pilot study conducted by a dedicated team (n = 47) were compared to those achieved in the shared protocol phase (n = 143) three years later. Outcomes were length of postoperative hospital stay, readmission rate, compliance to the protocol and morbidity. Primary endpoint was the description of the results and the identification of critical issues of large scale implementation of an ERAS program in colorectal surgery emerged in the experience of a single center. Secondary endpoint was the identification of interventions that have been proven to be effective for facilitating the transition from traditional care pathways to a multimodal management protocol according to ERAS principles in colorectal surgery at a single center.

RESULTS: During the initial pilot study (March 2009 to December 2010; 47 patients) conducted by a dedicated multidisciplinary team, compliance to the items of ERAS protocol was 93%, with a median length of hospital stay (LOS) of 3 d. Early anastomotic fistulas were observed in 2 cases (4.2%), which required reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb). None of the patients had been discharged before the onset of the complication, which could therefore receive prompt treatment. There were also four (8.5%) minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade II). Thirty days readmission rate was 4%. Perioperative mortality was nil. After implementation of the protocol throughout the Hospital in unselected patients (May 2012 to December 2012; 147 patients) compliance was 74%, with a median LOS of 6 d. Early anastomotic fistulas were observed in 11 cases (7.7%), 5 (3.5%) of which required reoperation (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb). Two early anastomotic fistulas were treated by radiologic/endoscopic manoeuvres and 4 were treated conservatively. There were also 36 (25.2%) minor complications, 21 (14.7%) of which were Clavien-Dindo grade II and 15 (10.5%) of which were Clavien-Dindo grade I. Only two patients whose course was adversely affected by the development of an anastomotic leak had been discharged before the onset of the complication itself, requiring readmission. Readmission rate within 30 d was 4%. Perioperative mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that introduction of an ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery allows quicker postoperative recovery and shortens the length of stay compared to historical series.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopy has been applied to colorectal resections for more than 2 decades. However, laparoscopic rectal resection is technically demanding, especially when performing a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in a difficult pelvis. Robotic surgery is uniquely designed to overcome most of these technical limitations. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of robotic rectal cancer surgery in a large multicenter study.

METHODS

Retrospective data of 425 patients who underwent robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal lesions at seven institutions were collected. Outcome data were analyzed for the overall cohort and were stratified according to obese versus non-obese and low versus ultra-low resection patients.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.9 years, and 57.9 % of patients were male. Overall, 51.3 % of patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while operative time was 240 min, mean blood loss 119 ml, and intraoperative complication rate 4.5 %. Mean number of lymph nodes was 17.4, with a positive circumferential margin rate of 0.9 %. Conversion rate to open was 5.9 %, anastomotic leak rate was 8.7 %, with a mean length of stay of 5.7 days. Operative times were significantly longer and re-admission rate higher for the obese population, with all other parameters comparable. Ultra-low resections also had longer operative times.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is safe and can be performed according to current oncologic principles. BMI seems to play a minor role in influencing outcomes. Thus, robotics might be an excellent treatment option for the challenging patient undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

Higher risk of incomplete mesorectal excision and positive circumferential margin in low rectal cancer regardless of surgical technique

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the predominant question is whether a laparoscopic approach is comparatively radical in comparison with an open access approach, especially in the circumferential resection margin and quality of the completeness of total mesorectal excision. These factors are important in determining the quality of surgical care as well as long-term results of the treatment.

AIM

This article focuses on the evaluation of circumferential resection margins and on the quality of mesorectal excision of middle and lower rectum tumors. In addition, laparoscopic and open techniques are compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data were collected prospectively and stored in a rectal cancer registry over a 3-year period. The parameters studied were age, sex, body mass index, localization and topography of the tumor, clinical stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its response, the type of surgery, character of the circumferential and distal margins, quality of the mesorectal excision, pT and pN.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five patients were chosen for our study. Laparoscopy was performed in 53 operations and a conventional approach was performed in 72 operations. Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 54.7% of laparoscopic operations versus 44.4% in the conventional technique; partially complete excision was performed in 20.8 and 12.5%, respectively. Incomplete excisions were described in 24.5 and 43.1% (p = 0.085). Positive circumferential margin occurred during laparoscopic surgery in 11 (20.8%) patients, and in the case of conventional resection in 27 (37.5%) patients (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed comparable results between laparoscopic and open access procedures during rectal resection. The results achieved, in particular in the quality of the mesorectal excision and negative circumferential resection margin, show that the laparoscopic approach is comparable to conventional surgical techniques, with an adequate surgical outcome, in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Representation of the elderly in trials of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

Most patients with colorectal cancer are elderly, but there are few data on the optimal surgical treatment for this age group and most studies are observational. We have reviewed the characteristics of randomized trials reporting laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer to determine the degree to which the elderly are represented.

METHOD

A search was conducted of the NIH clinical trial registry and the ISRCTN register for randomized trials on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Trial characteristics and end-points were extracted from the registry website and supplemented by published results where available.

RESULTS

Of 52 trial protocols the majority did not state any restrictions regarding cardiac [40 (77%)] or pulmonary function [41 (79%)]. More than half [30 (58%)] had no restrictions regarding American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Twenty-three (44%) trials excluded the elderly either simply on age or by comorbidity or organ function. When an upper age limit was set, half of the studies had no restriction regarding organ function, indicating that chronological age rather than physical condition was taken as the reason for exclusion. In 45 (86%) of the trials the average age of participants was < 70 years, and no details of concurrent disease were given.

CONCLUSION

Participation of the elderly in trials of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is very limited. This should be remedied in future trials if adequate information on the majority of patients with colorectal cancer is to be obtained.

Objective assessment of technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: what are the existing tools?

Assessment can improve the effectiveness of surgical training and enable valid judgments of competence. Laparoscopic colon resection surgery is now taught within surgical residency programs, and assessment tools are increasingly used to stimulate formative feedback and enhance learning. Formal assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic colon resection has been successfully applied at the specialist level in the English "LAPCO" National Training Program. Objective assessment tools need to be developed for training and assessment in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection surgery. Simulation may have a future role in assessment and accreditation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery; however, existing virtual reality models are not ready to be used for assessment of this advanced surgery.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of 163 Patients in a Single Institution

Background. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancers. Materials and Methods. The medical records from a total of 163 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancers were retrospectively analyzed. Patient's demographic data, operative details and postoperative early outcomes, outpatient follow-up, pathologic results, and stages of the cancer were reviewed from the database. Results. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery showed significant advantages due to the minimally invasive nature of the surgery compared with those who underwent open surgery, namely, less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer resulted in a longer operative time compared with open surgery (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for medical complications (P > 0.05). Open surgery resulted in more incisional infections and postoperative ileus compared with laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.05). There were no differences in the pathologic parameters between two groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions. These findings indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer had the clear advantages of a minimally invasive surgery and relative disadvantage with longer surgery time and exhibited similar pathologic parameters compared with open surgery.

Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic

Goals Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic TME (LTME) is a technically challenging procedure with a long learning curve. Robotic TME (RTME) has been advocated as an alternative to conventional LTME, but large studies supporting the efficacy or RTME are scarce. This work will review the current literature on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer and discuss future directions in the field. Methods A review of recent large single and multicenter studies on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was conducted. Results Based on two large randomized clinical studies (CLASICC (Green et al. 2013) and COLOR II (van der Pas et al. 2013)). LTME is safe and feasible for the treatment of rectal cancer. Compared to open surgery, LTME has been shown to result in superior postoperative outcomes and similar oncologic results. However, the conversion rate of LTME is around 17 %. The literature supporting RTME is more limited. Robotic rectal resection appears to have similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes compared to LTME. RTME results in higher costs and possibly lower conversion rates. A large randomized clinical trial (ROLARR) comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is underway. Conclusions Despite the technical challenges, current data supports the use of minimally invasive technique for rectal cancer surgery with superior short-term outcomes compared to an open approach. The use of robotic surgery is promising, but still limited and awaiting the conclusion of randomized clinical trials.

Evolution and future of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

The advances of laparoscopic surgery since the early 1990s have caused one of the largest technical revolutions in medicine since the detection of antibiotics (1922, Flemming), the discovery of DNA structure (1953, Watson and Crick), and solid organ transplantation (1954, Murray). Perseverance through a rocky start and increased familiarity with the chop-stick surgery in conjunction with technical refinements has resulted in a rapid expansion of the indications for minimally invasive surgery. Procedure-related factors initially contributed to this success and included the improved postoperative recovery and cosmesis, fewer wound complications, lower risk for incisional hernias and for subsequent adhesion-related small bowel obstructions; the major breakthrough however came with favorable long-term outcomes data on oncological parameters. The future will have to determine the specific role of various technical approaches, define prognostic factors of success and true progress, and consider directing further innovation while potentially limiting approaches that do not add to patient outcomes.

Current status of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer

Surgery for rectal cancer in complex and entails many challenges. While the laparoscopic approach in general and specific to colon cancer has been long proven to have short term benefits and to be oncologically safe, it is still a debatable topic for rectal cancer. The attempt to benefit rectal cancer patients with the known advantages of the laparoscopic approach while not compromising their oncologic outcome has led to the conduction of many studies during the past decade. Herein we describe our technique for laparoscopic proctectomy and assess the current literature dealing with short term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures (such as lymph node yield and specimen quality) and long term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We also briefly evaluate the evolving issues of robotic assisted rectal cancer surgery and the current innovations and trends in the minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic excision of retrorectal tumours

AIM

The aim of this study was to demonstrate a laparoscopic technique for the excision of retrorectal tumours.

METHOD

A retrospective review of cases identified from a prospectively maintained database was undertaken.

RESULTS

Ten patients (seven female; median age 45 years (range 23-79) underwent successful laparoscopic excision with no significant morbidity or intra-operative mishaps.

CONCLUSION

The procedure was deemed to be safe and we include a video to show the operative technique.

Relaparoscopy for management of postoperative complications following colorectal surgery: ten years experience in a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant disease. On the basis of this growing experience, there is now an expanded role for laparoscopic approach to postoperative complications after primary colorectal resection. However, there is little literature specific to this topic. We report a ten-year experience with laparoscopic treatment of early complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From January 2003 to December 2012, a total of 1,292 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery in our department. One hundred and two (7.9%) patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication. Laparoscopy has been also adopted as the preferred procedure for management of postoperative complications. A retrospective review of 84 patients who had relaparoscopy (RL) for postoperative complications, including peritonitis, ureteral injury, bowel obstruction, and bleeding, was performed.

RESULTS

Reoperation was carried out laparoscopically in 79 (94.0%) patients. Five (6.0%) conversions were necessary because of massive colonic ischemia, generalized fecal peritonitis, and lack of working space. The most common finding at RL was anastomotic leakage (57.1%) that was managed by peritoneal lavage and ileostomy in 91.7% of cases. Six percent of patients had negative RL. Overall morbidity rate was 25.0%. Five patients required additional surgery: four (5.1%) after RL and one after a converted procedure. There were five (6.0%) deaths from septic shock, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective tool for management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In this setting, RL represents the first step of re-exploration and treatment, with no delay to conversion to open procedure even in skilled laparoscopic hands.

Improving the outcomes in oncological colorectal surgery

During the last several decades, colorectal cancer surgery has experienced some major perioperative improvements. Preoperative risk-assessment of nutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia followed by interventions for patient optimization or an adapted surgical strategy, contributed to improved postoperative outcomes. Enhanced recovery programs or fast-track surgery also resulted in reduced length of hospital stay and overall complications without affecting patient safety. After an initially indecisive start due to uncertainty about oncological safety, the most significant improvement in intraoperative care was the introduction of laparoscopy. Laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal cancer is associated with better short-term outcomes, whereas long-term outcomes regarding survival and recurrence rates are comparable. Nevertheless, long-term results in rectal surgery remain to be seen. Early recognition of anastomotic leakage remains a challenge, though multiple improvements have allowed better management of this complication.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate oncologic outcomes, as well as perioperative and pathologic outcomes, of single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection (SILAR) compared with conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for sigmoid colon cancer using propensity-score matching analysis.

METHODS

From July 2009 through April 2012, a total of 407 patients underwent laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. Data on short- and long-term outcomes were collected prospectively and reviewed. Propensity-score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:2 comparing the SILAR (n = 60) and CLAR (n = 120) groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in operation time, estimated blood loss, time to soft diet, and length of hospital stay; however, the SILAR group showed less pain on postoperative day 2 (mean 2.6 vs. 3.6; p = 0.000) and shorter length of incision (3.3 vs. 7.7 cm; p = 0.000) compared with the CLAR group. Morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar in both groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 94.5 versus 97.1% (p = 0.223), and disease-free survival rates were 89.5 versus 87.4% (p = 0.751) in the SILAR and CLAR groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term oncologic outcomes, as well as short-term outcomes, of SILAR are comparable with those of CLAR. Although SILAR might have some technical difficulties, it appears to be a safe and feasible option, with better cosmetic results.

Outcome of laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal resection has been gaining popularity over the past two decades. However, studies about laparoscopic rectal surgery in elderly patients with long-term oncologic outcomes are limited. In this study, we evaluated the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection in patients with rectal cancer aged ≥ 70 y.

METHODS

From 2007-2012, a total of 294 consecutive patients with rectal cancer from a single institution were included, 112 patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection were compared with 182 patients undergoing open rectal resection.

RESULTS

Seven (6.3%) patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery. The two groups were well balanced in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American society of anesthesiologists scores, site, and stage of the tumors. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly longer median operating time (220 versus 200 min; P = 0.005), less estimated blood loss (100 versus 150 mL; P < 0.001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (8 versus 11 d), lower overall postoperative complication rate (15.2% versus 26.4%; P = 0.025), wound-related complication rate (7.14% versus 17.03%; P = 0.015), less need of blood transfusion (8.04% versus 16.5%; P = 0.038), and surgical intensive care unit after surgery (12.5% versus 22.0%; P = 0.042) when compared with open surgery. Mortality, quality of surgical specimen, lymph nodes harvested, positive distal, and circumferential margin rate were not significantly different between two groups. The estimated 3-y survival rates were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is safe and feasible in patients >70 y and is associated with better short-term outcomes when compared with open surgery.

Age-related guideline adherence and outcome in low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Care for elderly patients with low rectal cancer can pose dilemmas, because radical total mesorectal excision surgery comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the treatment of patients with low rectal cancer, comparing treatment choices, guideline adherence, and outcomes for elderly patients (≥75 years) with younger patients (<75 years).

DESIGN

Patient data were retrieved from the hospital pathology database and from the hospital prospective colorectal surgery database for surgically treated patients. Records were reviewed for nonadherence to treatment guidelines. Delivered treatment modalities for patients with stage I to III rectal cancer were compared with treatment advised by national guidelines, and reasons stated by the treating physician for nonadherence to guidelines were subsequently collected.

SETTINGS

This study was performed at a high-volume teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients included were those with newly diagnosed rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment decisions, guideline adherence, and outcome of surgical treatment were the main outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Of 218 included patients, 75 (34%) were aged ≥75 years. Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer was significantly lower in elderly patients (62% versus 87% for aged <75 years; p < 0.001), and age was the primary reason mentioned for withholding treatment. Palliative anticancer treatment for stage IV disease was also initiated significantly less frequently in elderly patients (60% versus 97%; p = 0.002). Overall rates of treatment complications were similar for both patient groups (p = 0.71), but the impact of complications on survival was much greater for elderly patients (p = 0.002).

LIMITATIONS

Data on outcome of other treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer declines significantly with increasing age. Future research should focus on strategies of treatment tailored to patient health status rather than chronological age.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

This review of cancer outcomes is based on key literature searches of the medical databases and meta-analysis of short-term benefits of laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) published between January 2000 and September 2013 listed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42013005076). The primary endpoint was clearance of the circumferential resection margin. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model, and sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model; subgroup analysis was performed on subsets of patients with extraperitoneal cancer of the rectum. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (10,861 patients) met the inclusion criteria; eight were RCTs (2,659 patients). The RCTs reported involvement of the circumferential margin in 7.9 % of patients who underwent laparoscopic and in 6.9 % of those undergoing open surgery; the overall RR was 1.00 (95 % confidence interval 0.73-1.35) with no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis of patients with extraperitoneal cancer showed equivalent involvement of the circumferential margin in the two treatment groups. Although significantly more lymph nodes were retrieved in the surgical specimen after open surgery, the MD of -0.56 was of marginal clinical significance. The sensitivity and subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the rate of R0 resections, distal margin clearance, mesorectal fascia integrity, or local recurrence at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs, the short-term benefit and oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal resection appear to be equivalent to open surgery, with some evidence potentially pointing to comparable long-term outcomes and oncological adequacy in selected patients with primary resectable rectal cancer.

The evolving practice of hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has emerged as the area of focus in laparoscopic surgery. Hybrid NOTES (hNOTES) has some potential advantages for treating rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and November 2013, a total of 20 patients (11 males) who received hNOTES at two institutes participating in the study were documented and reviewed. Surgical outcomes, including complications and pathological outcomes, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 57.8 ± 10.1 years (range 34-78). Eleven patients received preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with the mean distance between tumor and anal verge being 5.9 ± 1.7 cm (mean 2-8). The mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was 68 ± 106 ml (range 30-500), with one case converted to open procedure due to uncontrolled bleeding. Eight cases underwent simultaneous two-team approach. The mean operative time was 200.8 ± 47.7 min (range 110-285). Circular stapling was performed for 14 cases (70 %) as the anastomosis, and protective stoma performed for 17 cases (85 %). The overall postoperative complication rate was 25 %. Two cases (10 %) develop pelvic abscess due to leakage, which were controlled by medical treatments. The distal and circumferential margins were all free of tumor cells, and the mean distal margin length was 2.4 ± 0.98 cm (range 0.5-4).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid NOTES for rectal cancer is safe and feasible. Rapid experience-building accelerates its evolution, as reflected here by the high stapling rate and the idea of a two-team approach. It has the potential to become an option of treating rectal cancers.

Transanal versus traditional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

After total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, patients with an incomplete mesorectum have an increased risk of local and overall recurrence. With the introduction of laparoscopic TME, an improved quality of the specimen was expected. However, the quality-related results were comparable to the results after traditional open surgery. Transanal TME is a new technique in which the rectum is mobilised by using a single-port and endoscopic instruments through the so called 'down to up' procedure. This new technique potentially leads to an improved specimen quality. This study was designed to investigate the pathological quality of specimens after transanal (TME) and to compare these with specimens after traditional laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

This matched case control study compared the specimens of a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent transanal TME with the specimens after traditional laparoscopic TME. The pathological quality of the mesorectum was determined by the definitions of Quirke as 'complete', 'nearly complete', or 'incomplete'.

RESULTS

From June 2012 until July 2013, 25 consecutive patients underwent transanal TME because of a rectum carcinoma. Within the transanal TME group, 96% of the specimens had a complete mesorectum, while in the traditional laparoscopic group, 72% was deemed complete (p < 0.05). Other pathological characteristics, such as the circumferential resection margin, were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal TME appears associated with a significant higher rate of completeness of the mesorectum. Further studies are necessary to evaluate this novel technique.

Outcomes in non-metastatic colorectal cancer

The measurement of outcomes in non-metastatic colon and rectal cancer patients is a multi-dimensional endeavor involving prediction tools, standard of care, and best treatment guidelines. Socioeconomic, demographic, and racial impacts on outcome must be carefully considered. Consideration must also be given to measures of cost, quality, and healthcare delivery in response to initiatives meant to optimize patient health while maintaining quality of life.

Predicting the pathological features of the mesorectum before the laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer

Pelvic anatomy and tumour features play a role in the difficulty of the laparoscopic approach to total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyse whether these characteristics also influence the quality of the surgical specimen. We performed a prospective study in consecutive patients with rectal cancer located less than 12 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopic surgery between January 2010 and July 2013. Exclusion criteria were T1 and T4 tumours, abdominoperineal resections, obstructive and perforated tumours, or any major contraindication for laparoscopic surgery. Dependent variables were the circumferential resection margin (CMR) and the quality of the mesorectum. Sixty-four patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision. Resection was complete in 79.1% of specimens and CMR was positive in 9.7%. Univariate analysis showed tumour depth (T status) (P = 0.04) and promontorium-subsacrum angle (P = 0.02) independently predicted CRM (circumferential resection margin) positivity. Tumour depth (P < 0.05) and promontorium-subsacrum axis (P < 0.05) independently predicted mesorectum quality. Multivariate analysis identified the promontorium-subsacrum angle (P = 0.012) as the only independent predictor of CRM. Bony pelvis dimensions influenced the quality of the specimen obtained by laparoscopy. These measurements may be useful to predict which patients will benefit most from laparoscopic surgery and also to select patients in accordance with the learning curve of trainee surgeons.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review of current practice

AIM: To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS: A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: “robotic surgery”, “surgical robotics”, “laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery”, “colectomy” and “rectal resection”.

RESULTS: After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m² were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann’s operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.

Patient-reported genitourinary dysfunction after laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery in a randomized trial (COLOR II)

BACKGROUND

This article reports on patient-reported sexual dysfunction and micturition symptoms following a randomized trial of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients in the COLOR II randomized trial, comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer, completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR38 questionnaire before surgery, and after 4 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mean differences on a 100-point scale were calculated using changes from baseline value at the various time points in the domains of sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, male and female sexual problems, and micturition symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 617 randomized patients, 385 completed this phase of the trial. Their mean age was 67·1 years. Surgery caused an anticipated reduction in genitourinary function after 4 weeks, with no significant differences between laparoscopic and open approaches. An improvement in sexual dysfunction was seen in the first year, but some male sexual problems persisted. Before operation 64·5 per cent of men in the laparoscopic group and 55·6 per cent in the open group reported some degree of erectile dysfunction. This increased to 81·1 and 80·5 per cent respectively 4 weeks after surgery, and 76·3 versus 75·5 per cent at 12 months, with no significant differences between groups. Micturition symptoms were less affected than sexual function and gradually improved to preoperative levels by 6 months. Adjusting for confounders, including radiotherapy, did not change these results.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction is common in patients with rectal cancer, and treatment (including surgery) increases the proportion of patients affected. A laparoscopic approach does not change this.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00297791 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

What should we intend for minimally invasive treatment of colorectal cancer?

Non-inferiority of laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials although operative and perioperative management varies widely among centers. Literature data in English language published up to April 15, 2014 were analyzed in order to give an up to date analysis that would highlights the key aspects of a modern and factual minimally invasive treatment of CRC. Laparoscopic resection is the first choice treatment of colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer should be considered an investigational procedure to be performed in high volume centers with special interest in laparoscopy and colorectal surgery. Less invasive approaches should be taken into account with the aim of reducing surgical stress. The adoption of ERAS programs has demonstrated to optimize short-term results. Future research should be directed to prove possible long-term advantages, in terms of overall and disease-free survival, of minimally invasive treatment of CRC.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic resection and a multimodal approach known as an enhanced recovery program (ERP) have been major changes in colorectal perioperative care that have improved clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer resection. EnROL (Enhanced Recovery Open Versus Laparoscopic) is a multicenter randomized controlled trial examining whether the benefits of laparoscopy still exist when open surgery is optimized within an ERP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adults with colorectal cancer suitable for elective resection were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to laparoscopic or open surgery within an ERP, stratified by center, cancer site (colon v rectum), and age group (<66 v 66-75 v >75 years) using minimization. The primary outcome was physical fatigue at 1 month postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, complications, other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and physical function. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded until 7 days postsurgery or discharge if earlier. Central independent and blinded pathologic assessment of surgical quality was undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients (laparoscopy, n=103; open surgery, n=101) were recruited from 12 UK centers from July 2008 to April 2012. One-month physical fatigue scores were similar in both groups (mean: laparoscopy, 12.28; 95% CI, 11.37 to 13.19 v open surgery, 12.05; 95% CI, 11.14 to 12.96; adjusted mean difference, -0.23; 95% CI, -1.52 to 1.07). Median total hospital stay was significantly shorter after laparoscopic surgery (median: laparoscopy, 5; interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 9 v open surgery, 7; IQR, 5 to 11 days; P=.033). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes or in specimen quality after central pathologic review.

CONCLUSION

In patients treated by experienced surgeons within an ERP, physical fatigue and other PROs were similar in both groups, but laparoscopic surgery significantly reduced length of hospital stay.

Analysis of conversion factors in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour.

RESULTS

The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters.

CONCLUSION

BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Restoration of bowel continuity following Hartmann's procedure may be performed using a laparoscopic or open technique. This study is the first of its kind comparing laparoscopic with open reversal of Hartmann's procedure in Australasia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 107 patients who underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 43) or open (n = 64) reversal of Hartmann's procedure between 2001 and 2012. Outcome measures were perioperative clinical outcomes and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Patients in the two groups were comparable in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and number of previous operations. The most common indication for the original Hartmann's operation in both groups was diverticular disease. Total theatre time was longer for the laparoscopic group (276.4 versus 242.0 min; P = 0.02). Three patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy (7%). Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure was associated with shorter time to passage of flatus (2.8 versus 4.0 days; P < 0.001) and faeces (4.2 versus 5.6 days; P = 0.002), and shorter overall length of hospital stay (6.7 versus 10.8 days; P < 0.001). There were fewer patients in the laparoscopic group who had post-operative complications (14% versus 31%; P = 0.04), including fewer cases of post-operative ileus (2% versus 17%; P = 0.02). There were no cases of anastomotic leak or in-hospital mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is a safe and feasible alternative to open Hartmann's reversal and may be associated with significantly faster recovery time and fewer post-operative complications.

Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compared with open resection, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers is associated with improved short-term outcomes, but high-level evidence showing similar long-term outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare survival outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for patients with mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Comparison of Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low REctal cancer After Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN) trial was an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial done between April 4, 2006, and Aug 26, 2009, at three centres in Korea. Patients (aged 18-80 years) with cT3N0-2M0 mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer who had received preoperative chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either open or laparoscopic surgery. Randomisation was stratified by sex and preoperative chemotherapy regimen. Investigators were masked to the randomisation sequence; patients and clinicians were not masked to the treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was 3 year disease-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470951.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 340 patients to receive either open surgery (n=170) or laparoscopic surgery (n=170). 3 year disease-free survival was 72·5% (95% CI 65·0-78·6) for the open surgery group and 79·2% (72·3-84·6) for the laparoscopic surgery group, with a difference that was lower than the prespecified non-inferiority margin (-6·7%, 95% CI -15·8 to 2·4; p<0·0001). 25 (15%) patients died in the open group and 20 (12%) died in the laparoscopic group. No deaths were treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

Our results show that laparoscopic resection for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy provides similar outcomes for disease-free survival as open resection, thus justifying its use.

FUNDING

National Cancer Center, South Korea.

Laparoscopic surgery for benign and malign diseases of the digestive system: Indications, limitations, and evidence

The laparoscopic technique was introduced in gastrointestinal surgery in the mid 1980s. Since then, the development of this technique has been extraordinary. Triggered by technical innovations (stapling devices or coagulation/dissecting devices), nowadays any type of gastrointestinal resection has been successfully performed laparoscopically and can be performed laparoscopically dependent on the patient’s condition. This summary gives an overview over 30 years of laparoscopic surgery with focus on today’s indications and evidence. Main indications remain the more common procedures, e.g., appendectomy, cholecystectomy, bariatric procedures or colorectal resections. For all these indications, the laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard with less perioperative morbidity. Regarding oncological outcome there have been several high-quality randomized controlled trials which demonstrated equivalency between laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Less common procedures like esophagectomy, oncological gastrectomy, liver and pancreatic resections can be performed successfully as well by an experienced surgeon. However, the evidence for these special indications is poor and a general recommendation cannot be given. In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the field of gastrointestinal surgery by reducing perioperative morbidity without disregarding surgical principles especially in oncological surgery.

Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: An evidence-based review

Open surgery for colorectal disease has progressed significantly over the past century from humble beginnings to form the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer and a number of benign conditions. Following the introduction of laparoscopic abdominal surgery, the next stage in the evolution of the specialty began in the 1990s with the first laparoscopic colonic resection. Following some early concerns regarding its safety and oncological efficacy during the latter part of that decade, laparoscopic colorectal surgery rapidly came into mainstream use in the early part of the current century with evidence supporting its use being made available from large scale randomised controlled trials. This article provides an evidence-based summary of this evolutionary process as it relates to both benign and malignant colorectal disease, as well as discussion of the next phase of new technologies such as robotic surgery.

Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: A review

Despite established evidence on the advantages of laparoscopy in colon cancer resection, the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer resection is still controversial. The initial concern was mainly regarding the feasibility of laparoscopy to achieve an adequate total mesorectal excision specimen. These concerns have been raised following early studies demonstrating higher rates of circumferential margins positivity following laparoscopic resection, as compared to open surgery. Similar to colon resection, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are expected to benefit from a shorter length of hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and a faster recovery of bowel function. In the past decade there have been an increasing number of large scale clinical trials investigating the oncological and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. In this review we summarize the current literature available on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks

The current standard treatment for rectal cancer is based on a multimodality approach with preoperative radiochemotherapy in advanced cases and complete surgical removal through total mesorectal excision (TME). The most frequent surgical approach is traditional open surgery, as laparoscopic TME requires high technical skill, a long learning curve, and is not widespread, still being confined to centers with great experience in minimally invasive techniques. Nevertheless, in several studies, the laparoscopic approach, when compared to open surgery, has shown some better short-term clinical outcomes and at least comparable oncologic results. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique, which could overcome some of the technical difficulties posed by standard laparoscopy, but evidence from the literature regarding its oncologic safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review analyses the current status of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer therapy, focusing on oncologic safety and the new robotic approach.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma: short-term and midterm outcomes from 200 consecutive cases at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Although robotic surgery is increasingly used in the management of rectal cancer, its oncologic safety remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection in terms of short-term and midterm outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospectively collected set of samples was retrospectively evaluated.

SETTINGS

Data included in this study were collected at a single institution from 2007 to 2011.

PATIENTS

The study included 200 consecutive rectal cancer patients.

INTERVENTION

The patients underwent robotic-assisted resection surgery performed by a single surgeon.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The short-term (surgical outcome and pathologic data) and midterm outcomes (local pelvic control and overall and disease-free survival) were evaluated and compared with those in the published literature.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 60 years, and the male:female ratio was 2:1. The median distance of rectal tumors from the anal verge was 6 cm. Preoperative radiotherapy was performed in 55 patients. The median operation time was 270 minutes, and the median blood loss was 190 mL. Grade 3 to 5 complications, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, were observed in 15 patients (7.5%). The circumferential resection margin was positive in 5 patients (2.5%). During the median follow-up period of 29.8 months, recurrence occurred in 27 patients (distant metastasis, 18 patients; local recurrence, 7 patients; and both local recurrence and distant metastases, 2 patients). The local pelvic control and overall and disease-free survival rates of stage III patients at 5 years were 93.0%, 88.6%, and 76.6%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective, uncontrolled study of selected patients by a single surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated an acceptable morbidity and a low rate of positive circumferential resection margin with effective local control. We also achieved excellent survival data. The midterm oncologic safety justifies the practice of robotic rectal cancer resection to further investigate its role on long-term outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing trend to use laparoscopy for rectal cancer surgery. Although laparoscopic and open rectal resections appear oncologically equivalent, there is little information on the cost of different surgical approaches. With the current health care crisis and the importance of optimizing health care resources and patient outcomes, the cost of care is an important factor.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a case-matched study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective rectal cancer resection between 2007 and 2012 were selected.

METHODS

A review of a prospective database for elective laparoscopic rectal cancer resections was performed. Laparoscopic cases were matched to open cases based on age, BMI, operative procedure, and diagnostic-related group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the cost of care, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, readmission, postoperative complications, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-four matched cases were included in the analysis: 125 laparoscopic (49%) and 129 open (51%). The cTNM stage (p = 0.39), tumor distance from the anal verge (p = 0.07), and rate of neoadjuvant therapy received between the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (p = 0.12). Operating time (p< 0.01) and cost per operating room minute (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the open group. The groups were oncologically equivalent, based on circumferential resection margin (p = 0.15). The laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (p < 0.01) and lower total hospital cost (p < 0.01). Postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were similar. However, significantly more patients undergoing open resection required intensive care unit care (p = 0.03), skilled nursing (p = 0.03), or home care services (p < 0.01) at discharge.

LIMITATIONS

This investigation was conducted at a single institution and it is a retrospective study with potential bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is cost-effective for rectal cancer surgery, improving both health care expenditures and patient outcomes. For selected patients, laparoscopic rectal cancer resection can reduce length of stay, operating time, and resource utilization.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: what is the evidence?

Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer is a well-established procedure supported by several well-conducted large-scale randomised controlled trials. Patients could now be conferred the benefits of the minimally invasive approach while retaining comparable oncologic outcomes to the open approach. However, the benefits of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer remained controversial. While the laparoscopic approach is more technically demanding, results from randomised controlled trials regarding long term oncologic outcomes are only beginning to be reported. The impacts of bladder and sexual functions following proctectomy are considerable and are important contributing factors to the patients' quality of life in the long-term. These issues present a delicate dilemma to the surgeon in his choice of operative approach in tackling rectal cancer. This is compounded further by the rapid proliferation of various laparoscopic techniques including the hand assisted, robotic assisted, and single port laparoscopy. This review article aims to draw on the significant studies which have been conducted to highlight the short- and long-term outcomes and evidence for laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results of a 18-year single-centre experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for middle-low rectal cancer is still under discussion because of the few long-term data. This study reports the results arising from a single-institution experience during a 18-year period.

METHODS

Data about 132 consecutive laparoscopic TME performed between January 1994 and January 2012 were analysed with Kaplan-Meier method and a uni- and multi-variate analysis was conducted to define independent survival predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 116 sphincter-preserving operations and 16 abdominoperineal resections were performed. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0.8 and 18.2%, with a rate of anastomotic leakage of 13.8%. Average follow-up was 85.9 months (range 13-210). Actuarial local recurrence rate was 4.13% at 5 years (any pelvic recurrence developed after 3 years from surgery). Overall and disease-free survival was respectively 83 and 79.8% at 5 years, 71 and 73% at 10 years and then remained constant until 18 years. Survival was correlated only to tumour stage and the type of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TME for extraperitoneal rectal cancer shows long-term oncologic outcomes similar to open rectal resections.