Identification of patient subgroups with unfavorable long-term outcomes associated with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0404)

A Multicenter Analysis of Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Multivisceral Resection for Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Background/Aim

Recent research has demonstrated that laparoscopic multivisceral resection (MVR) for advanced colorectal cancer is safe, practicable, and yields satisfactory oncological results, which is in line with the growing usage of laparoscopic surgery. The effectiveness of laparoscopic MVR is still debatable, though. The goal of this study was to compare the short- and long-term results of patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with open MVR with laparoscopic procedures.

Patients and Methods

Data on 3,571 consecutive patients hospitalized at the Kyushu University National Kyushu Cancer Center for colorectal cancer surgery between 2004 and 2020 were gathered retrospectively. In the end, 84 individuals with advanced colorectal cancer who had a colectomy with MVR were examined. We evaluated invasiveness in terms of complications, blood loss, and operating time. Recurrence-free survival rates and overall 5-year survival were among the oncological outcomes.

Results

Of the 84 patients examined, 29 underwent laparoscopic treatment, and 55 underwent open treatment. The laparoscopic surgery group experienced shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 18 days, p<0.05) and much less blood loss (median volume: 167 vs. 1,058 g, p<0.005) than the open surgery group. Following the exclusion of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer from the study (groups undergoing laparoscopic surgery, n=25; open surgery, n=38), the groups displayed comparable pathologic results and no discernible variations in either the 5-year overall survival (p=0.87) or recurrence-free survival (p=0.86).

Conclusion

In certain individuals with advanced colorectal cancer, a laparoscopic method of manipulation with MVR may be less invasive than an open method without compromising the prognosis.

World's first report of sigmoidectomy for sigmoid cancer using the Saroa surgical system with tactile feedback

Increasing evidence based on the safety and benefits of robot-assisted surgery indicates the disadvantage of the lack of tactile feedback. A lack of tactile feedback increases the risk of intraoperative complications, prolongs operative times, and delays the learning curve. A 40-year-old female patient presented to our hospital with a positive fecal occult blood test. A colonoscopy revealed type 2 advanced cancer of the sigmoid colon, and histological examination showed a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a tumor in the sigmoid colon and several swollen lymph nodes in the colonic mesentery without distant metastases. The patient was diagnosed with cStage IIIb (cT3N1bM0) sigmoid cancer and underwent sigmoidectomy using the Saroa Surgical System, which was developed by RIVERFIELD, a venture company at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Based on adequate simulation, surgery was safely performed with appropriate port placement and arm base-angle adjustment. The operating time was 176 min, with a console time of 116 min and 0 ml blood loss. The patient was discharged 6 days postoperatively without complications. The pathological diagnosis was adenocarcinoma, tub1, tub2, pT2N1bM0, and pStage IIIa. Herein, we report the world's first surgery for sigmoid cancer using the Saroa Surgical System with tactile feedback in which a safe and appropriate oncological surgery was performed.

Impact of laparoscopic surgery on short-term and long-term outcomes in elderly obese patients with colon cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is reported to be useful in obese or elderly patients with colon cancer, who are at increased risk of postoperative complications because of comorbidities and physical decline. However, its usefulness is less clear in patients who are both elderly and obese and may be at high risk of complications.

Methods

Data for obese patients (body mass index ≥25) who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery for stage II or III colon cancer between January 2009 and December 2013 were collected by the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and relapse-free survival (RFS) were compared between patients who underwent open surgery and those who underwent laparoscopic surgery according to whether they were elderly (≥70 y) or nonelderly (<70 y).

Results

Data of 1549 patients (elderly, n = 598; nonelderly, n = 951) satisfied the selection criteria for analysis. Length of stay was shorter and surgical wound infection was less common in elderly obese patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery than in those underwent open surgery. There were no significant between-group differences in overall complications, anastomotic leakage, ileus/small bowel obstruction, or RFS. There were also no significant differences in RFS after laparoscopic surgery according to patient age.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery is safe in elderly obese patients with colon cancer and does not worsen their prognosis. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery between obese patients who were elderly and those who were nonelderly.

Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for pathological T4 and/or N2 colon cancer patients: Multicenter study using propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery (LAP) vs open surgery (OP) for pathological T4 (pT4) and/or N2 (pN2) colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 255 primary tumor resections for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer performed from 2015 to 2020 at six hospitals, divided into LAP (n = 204) and OP groups (n = 51). After propensity score matching to minimize selection bias, 47 matched patients per group were assessed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the rate of males (53.9% vs. 37.3%, P = .042), left sided colon cancer (53.9% vs 37.3%, P = .042), D3 lymph node dissection (90.7% vs 68.6%, P < .001) and body mass index (kg/m2 ) (22.3 vs 21.8, P = .039) were significantly greater in the LAP group. The rate of pT4b (7.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001) was lower and pN2 was higher (57.4% vs 37.3%, P = .012) in the LAP group. After matching, preoperative characteristics and pathologic status were equivalent between the groups. The LAP and OP groups showed comparable overall survival (OS) (2-year OS, 84.5% vs 76.8%, P = .055) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year RFS, 73.9% vs 52.8%, P = .359). In the patients with pT4, OS (2-year OS, 79.4% vs 75.7%, P = .359) and RFS (2-year RFS, 71.3% vs 58.7%) were comparable. In the patients with pN2, OS (2-year OS, 83.4% vs 76.3%) and RFS (2-year RFS, 69.6% vs 36.2%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer showed comparable mid-term outcomes compared with OP. LAP was an acceptable surgical approach in this cohort.

Laparoscopic surgery reduced frequency of postoperative small bowel obstruction, and hospital stay compared with open surgery in a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) is reported to reduce postoperative complications and hospital stay compared with open surgery (OP). Because patient selection may have been biased in previous studies, propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used in this study to test the benefits of LS compared with OP.

METHODS

A total of 759 patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer undergoing curative surgery were retrospectively reviewed. To minimize confounding bias between LS and OP groups, a 1:1 PSM analysis was performed based on adjuvant chemotherapy, age, albumin, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status depth of tumor, gender, lymph node dissection, maximum tumor size, obstructive tumor, previous abdominal surgery, pathological stage, tumor differentiation, and tumor location. Statistical analyses including chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, univariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were performed using the data after PSM to investigate the benefits of LS compared with OP.

RESULTS

After PSM analysis, 460 patients remained in the study. The LS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (34 ± 70 vs 237 ± 391, mL; P < 0.001), lower frequency of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO) (17/213 vs 30/230; P = 0.045), lower rate of nasogastric tube insertion (7/223 vs 17/213; P = 0.036), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (13 ± 10 vs 25 ± 47, day; P < 0.001) than the OP group. Univariate analyses showed that LS significantly reduced the risk of postoperative SBO (odds ratio [OR] 0.532; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.285-0.995; P = 0.048) and nasogastric tube insertion (OR 0.393; 95% CI 0.160-0.967; P = 0.042) compared with OP. There were no significant differences in OS and RFS between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LS reduced intraoperative blood loss, frequency of postoperative SBO, rate of nasogastric tube insertion, and postoperative hospital stay compared with OP.

Prognostic risk factors for pT4 colon cancer: A retrospective cohort study

The present study aimed to clarify the prognostic risk factors for pathological T4 (pT4) colon cancer and provide a basis for improved treatment in affected patients. The current retrospective cohort study included 83 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent curative surgery for primary pT4 colon cancer between January 2014 and December 2021 at Tokyo Medical Women's University (Tokyo, Japan). Oncological outcomes, including recurrence pattern, were compared between patients with pT4a and pT4b colon cancer. Independent risk factors associated with overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were analyzed using a multivariate Cox regression model. The 3-year OS rates were 85.1 and 95.0% in the pT4a and pT4b groups (P=0.089) and 3-year RFS rates were 64.1 and 60.5% (P=0.589), respectively. Moreover, the 3-year peritoneal recurrence-free survival was 71.0 and 90.2% (P=0.085) in these groups, respectively. Independent risk factors for OS were histology (mucinous or poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma), tumor location (right-sided) and pN status (positive). The risk factors for RFS were histology and pN status. Patients with pT4b colon cancer and R₀ resection may not have a poorer prognosis compared with those with pT4a colon cancer. However, patients with pT4a colon cancer tended to have more peritoneal recurrence patterns. Histology and pN status were associated with OS and RFS, and right-sided colon cancer was also a risk factor for OS.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score-based analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

Aim

Whether a laparoscopic procedure can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes in obese patients with stage II/III rectal cancer compared to an open procedure remains unclear.

Objective

This study evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m²) with rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods

Data were collected from patients with pathological stage II/III rectal cancer and analyzed. Operations were performed via laparoscopic or open surgery from 2009 to 2013. A comparative analysis was performed after applying propensity score matching to the two cohorts (laparoscopic group and open group). The primary endpoint was 3-y relapse-free survival (RFS).

Results

Overall, 524 eligible cases were collected from 51 institutions. Equal numbers of propensity score-matched patients were included in the laparoscopic (n = 193) group and open (n = 193) group. Although the rate of D3 lymph node dissection did not differ between the laparoscopic group (87.0%) and the open group (88.6%), the median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group versus open group (17.5 vs 21, P = 0.0047). The median postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (14 d) vs the open group (17 d) (P = 0.0014). Three-y RFS was not significantly different between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.2454, 95% confidence interval 0.9201-1.6884, P = 0.4689).

Conclusion

The short- and long-term results of this large cohort study (UMIN ID: UMIN000033529) indicated that laparoscopic surgery in obese rectal cancer patients has advantageous short-term outcomes and no disadvantageous long-term outcomes.