Comparing oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: Analysis of a large prospective clinical database

Do Laparoscopic Approaches Ensure Oncological Safety and Prognosis for Serosa-Exposed Colon Cancer? A Comparative Study against the Open Approach

The adoption of laparoscopic surgery in the management of serosa-exposed colorectal cancer has raised concerns. This study aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative recurrence in patients undergoing resection for serosa-exposed colon cancer. A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 315 patients who underwent curative resection for pathologically confirmed T4a colon cancer without distant metastases at the Asan Medical Center between 2006 and 2015. Patients were categorized according to the surgical approach method: laparoscopic surgery (MIS group) versus open surgery (Open group). Multivariate analysis was employed to identify risk factors associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The MIS group included 148 patients and the Open group had 167 patients. Of the total cohort, 106 patients (33.7%) experienced recurrence during the follow-up period. Rates, patterns, and time to recurrence were not different between groups. The MIS group (55.8%) showed more peritoneal metastasis compared to the Open group (44.4%) among recurrence sites, but it was not significant (p = 0.85). There was no significant difference in the five-year OS (73.5% vs. 78.4% p = 0.374) or DFS (62.0% vs. 64.6%; p = 0.61) between the Open and MIS groups. Age and the pathologic N stage were independently associated with OS, and the pathologic N stage was the only associated risk factor for DFS. The laparoscopic approach for serosa-exposed colon cancer did not compromise the DFS and OS. This study provides evidence that laparoscopic surgery does not compromise oncologic outcomes of patients with T4a colon cancer although peritoneal seeding is the most common type of disease failure of serosa-exposed colon cancer.

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.

Body mass index-based predictions and personalized clinical strategies for colorectal cancer in the context of PPPM

Currently colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer worldwide. Body mass index (BMI) is frequently used in CRC screening and risk assessment to quantitatively evaluate weight. However, the impact of BMI on clinical strategies for CRC has received little attention. Within the framework of the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (3PM/PPPM), we hypothesized that BMI stratification would affect the primary, secondary, and tertiary care options for CRC and we conducted a critical evidence-based review. BMI dynamically influences CRC outcomes, which helps avoiding adverse treatment effects. The outcome of surgical and radiation treatment is adversely affected by overweight (BMI ≥ 30) or underweight (BMI < 20). A number of interventions, such as enhanced recovery after surgery and robotic surgery, can be applied to CRC at all levels of BMI. BMI-controlling modalities such as exercise, diet control, nutritional therapy, and medications may be potentially beneficial for patients with CRC. Patients with overweight are advised to lose weight through diet, medication, and physical activity while patients suffering of underweight require more focus on nutrition. BMI assists patients with CRC in better managing their weight, which decreases the incidence of adverse prognostic events during treatment. BMI is accessible, noninvasive, and highly predictive of clinical outcomes in CRC. The cost-benefit of the PPPM paradigm in developing countries can be advanced, and the clinical benefit for patients can be improved with the promotion of BMI-based clinical strategy models for CRC.

The Value of Federated Data Networks in Oncology: What Research Questions Do They Answer? Outcomes From a Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an important role in addressing key research questions of interest to healthcare decision makers. Federated data networks (FDNs) apply novel technology to enable the conduct of RWE studies with multiple partners, without the need to share the individual partner's data set. A systematic review of the published literature was performed to determine which types of research questions can best be addressed through FDNs, specifically in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase were undertaken to identify the types of research questions that had been addressed in studies using FDNs. Additional information was retrieved about study characteristics, statistical methods, and the FDN itself.

RESULTS

In total, 40 publications were included where research questions on the following had been addressed (multiple categories possible): disease natural history (58%), safety surveillance (18%), treatment pathways (15%), comparative effectiveness (10%), and cost/resource use studies (3%)-13% of studies had to be left uncategorized. A total of 50% of the studies were run with data partners in networks of ≤5. The size of the networks ranged from 227 patients to >5 million patients. Statistical methods used included distributed learning and distributed regression methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is needed to raise awareness of the important role that FDNs can play in leveraging readily available RWE to address key research questions of interest in cancer and the benefits to the research community in engaging in federated data initiatives with a long-term perspective.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE).

RESULTS

Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Colorectal cancer databases and registries in Australia: what data is available?

BACKGROUND

There are multiple data sources relating to colorectal cancer (CRC) nationwide. Prospective clinical cancer databases, population-based registries and linked administrative data are powerful tools in clinical outcomes research and provide real-world perspective on cancer treatments. This study aims to review the different Australian data sources for CRC from the perspective of conducting comparative research studies using a PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework.

METHODS

Data dictionaries from the different data sources were evaluated for the types of exposure and outcome variables contained to highlight their differing research utility.

RESULTS

State or territory-based cancer registries contain limited histology, cancer staging and treatment detail. They enable investigation of population-level patterns in overall survival (OS) of cancer patients with different demographics. Prospective clinical cancer databases contain more detail, especially surgical. Their strength is in auditing short-term surgical outcomes. They vary in the amount of data collected for other cancer treatments and completion of follow up data. Linked administrative databases have broad population coverage but less surgical detail. They provide population-level data on treatment patterns, short-term outcome measures and OS, as well as long-term surgical outcomes such as identifying patients who did not undergo stoma reversal. These databases cannot assess disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Of the various CRC data sources within Australia, linked administrative databases have the potential to provide the widest population coverage combined with the broadest range of exposures and outcomes, and arguably the most research utility.

Time trial of dry box laparoscopic surgical training improves laparoscopic surgical skills and surgical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The present study assessed the utility of a dry box time trial during laparoscopic surgical training to improve laparoscopic surgical skills and surgical outcomes.

METHODS

In a monthly time trial, surgeon trainees twice completed a set task that involved grasping a suture, aligning a needle with a needle holder, passing the suture, making three knots, and cutting the two tails of the suture. The mean suturing time was then analyzed. To assess the utility of this time trial, we analyzed the short-term outcomes of patients with stage I to III colon cancer who had undergone laparoscopic colectomy before and after the introduction of the time trial.

RESULTS

The monthly time trial was introduced in October 2018, and 52 surgeon trainees participated in the trials examined in this study. Within 6 months of the program's introduction, the mean suturing time had significantly declined to less than 70% of the time trial, while the standard deviations had declined to less than 30%. In comparisons of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery before (n = 49) and after (n = 46) the introduction of the time trial, the operative time tended to decline (P = .074) after the introduction of the time trial, and blood loss was significantly reduced (P = .018). The rate of postoperative complications was similar before and after the introduction.

CONCLUSION

Regular time trials of laparoscopic surgical suture training using a dry box can be useful for improving laparoscopic surgical skills and surgical outcomes. Moreover, time trials can keep trainees motivated.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND

The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC.

METHODS

A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION(S)

Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Differences in effectiveness and use of laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced colon cancer patients

Patients with locally advanced colon cancer have worse outcomes. Guidelines of various organizations are conflicting about the use of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in locally advanced colon cancer. We determined whether patient outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for locally advanced (T4) colon cancer are comparable in all colon cancer patients, T4a versus T4b patients, obese versus non-obese patients, and tumors located in the ascending, descending, and transverse colon. We used data from the 2013–2015 American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were diagnosed with nonmetastatic pT4 colon cancer, with or without obstruction, and underwent LC (n = 563) or OC (n = 807). We used a composite outcome score (mortality, readmission, re-operation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus); length of stay; and length of operation. Patients undergoing LC exhibited a composite outcome score that was 9.5% lower (95% CI − 15.4; − 3.5) versus those undergoing OC. LC patients experienced a 11.3% reduction in postoperative ileus (95% CI − 16.0; − 6.5) and an average of 2 days shorter length of stay (95% CI − 2.9; − 1.0). Patients undergoing LC were in the operating room an average of 13.5 min longer (95% CI 1.5; 25.6). We found no evidence for treatment heterogeneity across subgroups (p > 0.05). Patients with locally advanced colon cancer who receive LC had better overall outcomes and shorter lengths of stay compared with OC patients. LC was equally effective in obese/nonobese patients, in T4a/T4b patients, and regardless of the location of the tumor.

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

Background

To evaluate a new procedure in daily clinical practice, it might not be sufficient to rely exclusively on the findings of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This is the first systematic review providing a synthesis of the most important RCTs and relevant retrospective cohort studies on short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer patients.

Materials and methods

In a literature search, more than 1800 relevant publications on the topic were identified. Relevant RCTs and representative high-quality retrospective studies were selected based on the widely accepted Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. Finally, 9 RCTs and 14 retrospective cohort studies were included.

Results

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with a slightly longer duration of surgery, but a variety of studies show an association with a lower rate of postoperative complications and a shorter duration of hospital stay. Particularly in older patients with more frequent comorbidities, laparoscopy seems to contribute to decreasing postoperative mortality. Concerning long-term oncologic outcomes, the laparoscopic and open techniques were shown to be at least equivalent.

Conclusion

The findings of the existing relevant RCTs on laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are mostly confirmed by representative retrospective cohort studies based on real-world data; therefore, its further implementation into clinical practice can be recommended.

Impact of hospital geographic remoteness on short-term outcomes after colorectal cancer resection using state-wide administrative data

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to use validated coding algorithms, applied to a central repository of administrative data (AD), to report on short-term outcomes following resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) comparing regional to metropolitan Victorian hospitals.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using prospectively gathered AD. The primary outcome was prolonged length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were: inpatient mortality, return to theatre, discharge destination and need for mechanical ventilation/intensive care unit support. Outcomes were adjusted for potential confounders via multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

This study of 18 470 patients found strong evidence for lower odds of prolonged LOS (odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.58, P ≤ 0.001) and inpatient mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) in inner regional hospital compared with metropolitan hospitals. For outer regional hospitals, there was strong evidence of decreased odds of prolonged LOS (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.77, P = <0.001) and return to theatre (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest and most detailed study concerning short-term outcomes following CRC resection in Victorian public hospitals. Inner and outer regional centres had similar or better short-term outcomes than metropolitan hospitals after CRC resection. AD with validated algorithms serves as a large accurate database to report on CRC outcomes.

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer: a single-center analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

We evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic multivisceral resection (MVR) in selected patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC).

METHODS

We compared the clinical backgrounds, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic vs. those who underwent open MVR for LACC en bloc at our hospital.

RESULTS

Between January, 2004 and December, 2015, 140 patients underwent MVR of the primary tumor en bloc via laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group; LG, n = 69) or open surgery (open group; OG, n = 71). Laparoscopic surgery was selected mainly for tumors that invaded the bladder and abdominal wall. The LG patients had smaller tumors (60 vs. 80 mm, p < 0.001), less blood loss (30 vs. 181 g, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (12 vs. 19 days, p < 0.001) than the OG patients. Open conversion was required for two patients. Postoperative complications and R0 resection were comparable between the groups. Local recurrence occurred in two LG patients and two OG patients. The 5-year cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, and local disease-free survival of patients with pT4b disease were not significantly different between the LG and OG groups (90.3% vs. 75.2%, 71.2% vs. 67.6%, and 97.1% vs. 94.2%).

CONCLUSION

Although the LG included patients with lower risk, the short- and long-term outcomes were equivalent to those of the OG, which included patients with higher risk.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in pT4 colon cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has achieved improved short-term benefits and better long-term oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. However, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic surgery is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Published studies from 2003 to 2018 comparing oncological outcomes following laparoscopic and open surgery for pT4 colon cancer were systematically searched. Data on conversion rate, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity and mortality, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were subjected to meta-analysis using fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 2396 cases (1250 laparoscopic and 1146 open). There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.007; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.935-1.085; P = 0.850], number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 0.004; 95% CI = -0.139 to 0.148; P = 0.951), mortality (RR = 0.509; 95% CI = 0.176-1.470; P = 0.212), and 3-year OS (RR = 1.056; 95% CI = 0.939-1.188; P = 0.360), 5-year OS (RR = 1.003; 95% CI = 0.883-1.139; P = 0.966), 3-year DFS (RR = 1.032; 95% CI = 0.903-1.179; P = 0.642), and 5-year DFS (RR = 0.995; 95% CI = 0.868-1.140; P = 0.973) between the groups. The rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures was 10.7% (95% CI = 0.090-0.124). There was a significant difference in incidence of complications within 30 postoperative days between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR = 0.703; 95% CI = 0.564-0.876; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in pT4 colon cancer, oncological outcomes are similar, and more importantly, there are fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

Achieving high quality standards in laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: A Delphi consensus-based position paper

AIM

To investigate the rate of laparoscopic colectomies for colon cancer using registries and population-based studies. To provide a position paper on mini-invasive (MIS) colon cancer surgery based on the opinion of experts leader in this field.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines for the rate of laparoscopy in colon cancer. Moreover, Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among 35 international experts in four study rounds. Consensus was defined as an agreement ≥75.0%. Domains of interest included nosology, essential technical/oncological requirements, outcomes and MIS training.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies from 42 articles were reviewed. Although it is still sub-optimal, the rate of MIS for colon cancer increased over the years and it is currently >50% in Korea, Netherlands, UK and Australia. The remaining European countries are un-investigated and presented lower rates with highest variations, ranging 7-35%. Using Delphi methodology, a laparoscopic colectomy was defined as a "colon resection performed using key-hole surgery independently from the type of anastomosis". The panel defined also the oncological requirements recognized essential for the procedure and agreed that when performed by experienced surgeons, it should be marked as best practice in guidelines, given the principles of oncologic surgery be respected (R0 procedure, vessel ligation and mesocolon integrity).

CONCLUSION

The rate of MIS colectomies for cancer in Europe should be further investigated. A panel of leaders in this field defined laparoscopic colectomy as a best practice procedure when performed by an experienced surgeon respecting the standards of surgical oncology.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy for Wilms' tumor: Can we expand on the current SIOP criteria?

INTRODUCTION

Wilms' tumor now has a good overall prognosis with open radical nephrectomy having been the mainstay of surgical treatment. Recently laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) has been growing in popularity. The aim of our study was to review our indications and outcomes for laparoscopic resections for Wilms' tumor and compare indications with International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) criteria for LN.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patient demographics, preoperative management, surgical data, respect of SIOP criteria, complications, disease outcome, and follow-up were recorded on consecutive children who underwent nephrectomy for Wilms' tumor.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifty-four consecutive children with Wilms' tumor underwent a nephrectomy; 20 had a LN (Table). Nine of 20 (45%) patients who had LN did not meet SIOP criteria for LN. No patients had an intraoperative tumor rupture and one patient had positive margins because of preoperative rupture. There were two conversions: one caused by difficulty accessing the renal hilum and the other caused by difficulty maintaining oxygen saturations. There was one local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

SIOP criteria are conservative and safe. Indications can be extended for teams experienced in surgical oncology and laparoscopy after agreement at a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM).

Comparison of the short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional multiport surgery in colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

The feasibility of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPS) in colon cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of RPS and multiport surgery (MPS) in colon cancer using propensity score matching analysis.

Methods

A total of 302 patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection (AR) (n = 184) or right hemicolectomy (RHC) (n = 118) by a single surgeon between January 2011 and January 2017 were included. Short-term outcomes were compared between RPS and MPS.

Results

Seventy-three patients in the AR group and 23 in the RHC group underwent RPS. After propensity score matching, the RPS and MPS groups showed similar baseline characteristics. In the AR group, patients who underwent RPS (n = 72) showed a shorter operation time (114.4 ± 28.7 minutes vs. 126.7 ± 34.5 minutes, P = 0.021) and a longer time to gas passage (3.6 ± 1.7 days vs. 2.6 ± 1.5 days, P = 0.005) than MPS (n = 72). Similarly, in the RHC group, the operation time was shorter (112.6 ± 26.0 minutes vs. 146.5 ± 31.2 minutes, P = 0.005), and the time to first flatus was longer (2.7 ±1.1 days vs. 3.8 ± 1.3 days, P = 0.004) in the RPS group (n = 23) than in the MPS group (n = 23). Other short-term outcomes were similar for RPS and MPS in both the AR and RHC groups.

Conclusion

The short-term outcomes of RPS were found to be acceptable compared to those of MPS in colon cancer surgery.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer

Background:

Three operative techniques have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection: Conventional laparotomy (CL) and the mini-invasive techniques (MITs)– laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) and mini-laparotomy (ML). The aim of the study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the three surgical approaches for Stage I–III CRC resection.

Patients and Methods:

This study enrolled 688 patients with Stage I–III CRC undergoing curative resection. The primary endpoints were perioperative quality and outcomes. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR).

Results:

Patients undergoing LAS had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (P = 0.002) and earlier resumption of normal diet (P = 0.025). Although post-operative complication rates were remarkably higher in patients undergoing CL than in those undergoing MITs (P = 0.002), no difference was observed in the post-operative mortality rate (P = 0.099) or 60-day re-intervention rate (P = 0.062). The quality of operation as assessed by the number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R0 resection did not differ among the groups (all P > 0.05). During a median follow-up of 5.42 years, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups in the rates of 3-year late morbidity, 3-year LR, 5-year LR, 5-year OS or 5-year DFS (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing CL had higher post-operative morbidities. Moreover, the study findings confirm the favourable short-term and comparable long-term outcomes of LAS and ML for curative CRC resection. Therefore, both MITs may be feasible and safe alternatives to CL for Stage I-III CRC resection.

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate short- and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer, and to compare these with open surgery.

METHODS

Using systematic review of literature, studies reporting on radicality of resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer were identified, with or without a control group of open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios were calculated using an inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Thirteen observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2017 were included, together consisting of 1217 patients that received laparoscopic surgery and 1357 with an open procedure. The proportion of multivisceral resections was larger in the open group in five studies. Based on 11 studies, the pooled proportion of R0 resection was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Analysing (mainly) T4a subgroups in 6 evaluable studies revealed pooled R0 resection rates of 0.94 in both groups. No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and open surgery for any survival measure: RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96-1.20) for 3-year DFS, RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.15) for 5-year DFS, RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for 3-year OS, and RR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.12) for 5-year OS.

CONCLUSION

Literature on laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer is restricted to non-randomized comparisons with substantial allocation bias. Laparoscopic surgery for T4a tumours might be safe, whereas for T4b colon cancer requiring multivisceral resection it should be applied with caution.

The Evolving Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pediatric and Adolescent Urologic Oncology

OBJECTIVE

This review aims at evaluating the current status of minimally invasive surgery at the difficult crossroad between the attractiveness of innovation faced against the solid outcomes offered by the current gold standard, specifically concerning pediatric and adolescent urologic oncology conditions.

METHODS

This is a critical review of the literature and current paradigms on the use of minimally invasive surgery for pediatric and adolescent urologic oncology cancers. Focus is mainly on the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of Wilms' tumors but other neoplasms are also discussed.

RESULTS

We draw parallels with other similar pathologies, respecting critical lessons from international cooperative study groups. We discuss various aspects of the pros and cons of minimally invasive surgery in this patient population and make a case for the development of dedicated pediatric surgeons for urologic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Herein we draft a proposal suggesting a way forward with the adoption of reasonable paradigm shifts founded on carefully conducted studies for the introduction of minimally invasive surgery in the care of pediatric and adolescent urologic cancer.

Oncologic Outcomes Following Laparoscopic versus Open Resection of pT4 Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic resection, and clinical trials addressing the oncologic safety are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for locally advanced colon cancers.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened the literature for controlled trials or observational studies comparing curative-intent laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Studies were included if it was possible to determine outcomes for the T4 colon cancers separately, either reported in the article or calculated with individual patient data.

INTERVENTIONS

Included studies were systematically reviewed and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were done by using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, resection margins, and lymph node harvest.

RESULTS

Of 2878 identified studies, 5 observational studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 1268 patients (675 laparoscopic, 593 open). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.72), disease-free survival (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61), or positive surgical margins (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.32) between the groups. The open group had a larger lymph node retrieval (pooled mean difference, 2.26 nodes; 95% CI, 0.58-3.93). The pooled rate of conversion from laparoscopy to an open procedure was 18.6% (95% CI, 9.3%-27.9%).

LIMITATIONS

These results are limited by the inherent selection bias in the included nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, minimally invasive resection of selected locally advanced colon cancer is oncologically safe. There is a small increase in lymph node harvest with open resections, but it is unclear whether this is clinically significant. Surgeons should be prepared for a significant rate of conversion to laparotomy as required to perform en bloc resection.

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: Improved compliance with guidelines for chemotherapy and survival

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been demonstrated in clinical trials to have short-term benefits when compared to the open surgical approach. Guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend that patients with stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. We hypothesized that laparoscopic colectomy is associated with increased compliance to recommendations for chemotherapy, a lesser time to start of chemotherapy, and increased overall survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was queried to identify patients with stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (T4, positive margins, <12 lymph nodes, or high tumor grade) diagnosed 2010-2012. Patients were divided into laparoscopic colectomy and open colectomy groups. Intent-to-treat analysis was used with converted cases included in the laparoscopic colectomy group. Rates of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, time from diagnosis and date of operation to start of chemotherapy, and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 48,257 patients were included for analysis; 18,801 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy and 29,456 underwent open colectomy. Laparoscopic colectomy patients received adjuvant chemotherapy at a somewhat greater rate than open colectomy (66.2% vs 59.4%, P < .01). Among patients who received chemotherapy, mean time to start of chemotherapy after definitive resection was somewhat less for laparoscopic colectomy than open colectomy (48.7 vs 52.7 days, P < .01). Two-year overall survival was greater for laparoscopic colectomy than open colectomy (81.9% vs 73.2%, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Compared to open colectomy, laparoscopic colectomy is associated with somewhat greater rates of compliance with guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, as well as a slightly lesser time to start of chemotherapy and improved overall survival.

Impact of laparoscopic surgery training laboratory on surgeon's performance

Minimally invasive surgery has been replacing the open standard technique in several procedures. Similar or even better postoperative outcomes have been described in laparoscopic or robot-assisted procedures when compared to open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery has been providing less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and thus a faster return to daily activities. However, the learning curve required to obtain laparoscopic expertise has been a barrier in laparoscopic spreading. Laparoscopic surgery training laboratory has been developed to aid surgeons to overcome the challenging learning curve. It may include tutorials, inanimate model skills training (box models and virtual reality simulators), animal laboratory, and operating room observation. Several different laparoscopic courses are available with specific characteristics and goals. Herein, we aim to describe the activities performed in a dry and animal-model training laboratory and to evaluate the impact of different kinds of laparoscopic surgery training courses on surgeon’s performance. Several tasks are performed in dry and animal laboratory to reproduce a real surgery. A short period of training can improve laparoscopic surgical skills, although most of times it is not enough to confer laparoscopic expertise for participants. Nevertheless, this short period of training is able to increase the laparoscopic practice of surgeons in their communities. Full laparoscopic training in medical residence or fellowship programs is the best way of stimulating laparoscopic dissemination.

Laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer remain debatable, as randomized trials have reported similar outcomes for open and laparoscopic surgery but population-based data are scarce. Thus, it is unclear whether, outside of clinical trials, laparoscopic surgery that is performed as a standard clinical treatment has detrimental effects on patients' long-term survival.

METHODS

This study examined a unified database of 30 German regional cancer registries for patients with colorectal cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2011. Among 216,682 patients with colorectal carcinoma, we identified 37,068 patients with Union for International Cancer Control stage I-III colon carcinoma (>12 cm from the anal verge), including 3825 patients (10.38 %) who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were also used to evaluate factors that influenced the likelihood of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test was used to analyse differences in short- and long-term survival outcomes after open or laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Younger age, lower T-stage, and left-sided surgery were independent predictors of the patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery (all, p < 0001). The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for left-sided tumours (odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.77). Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was a significant and independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival for right- and left-sided surgeries (right-side, OR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.56-0.82; left-sided, OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.62-0.78).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that laparoscopic surgery provides favourable outcomes even when used outside controlled trials and should be considered as a standard treatment for patients with colon cancer.

Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques.

CONCLUSION

Conventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed.

Reduced port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes: comparative study with conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery

Purpose

Laparoscopic surgery was previously accepted as an alternative surgical option in treatment for colorectal cancer. Nowadays, single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is introduced as a method to maximize advantages of minimally invasive surgery. However, SPLS has several limitations compared to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CMLS). To overcome those limitations of SPLS, reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) was introduced. This study aimed at evaluating the short-term outcomes of RPLS.

Methods

Patients who underwent CMLS and RPLS of colon cancer between August 2011 and December 2013 were included in this study. Short-term clinical and pathological outcome were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Thirty-two patients underwent RPLS and 217 patients underwent CMLS. Shorter operation time, less blood loss, and faster bowel movement were shown in RPLS group in this study. In terms of postoperative pain, numeric rating scale (NRS) of RPLS was lower than that of CMLS. Significant differences were shown in terms of tumor size, harvested lymph node, perineural invasion, and pathological stage. No significant differences were confirmed in terms of other surgical outcomes.

Conclusion

In this study, RPLS was technically feasible and safe. Especially in terms of postoperative pain, RPLS was comparable to CMLS. RPLS may be a feasible alternative option in selected patients with colon cancer.

Impact of anastomotic leak on recurrence and survival after colorectal cancer surgery: a BioGrid Australia analysis

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the oncological impact of anastomotic leak following colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to test the hypothesis that anastomotic leak is independently associated with local recurrence and overall and cancer-specific survival.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data from multiple centres in Victoria between 1988 and 2015 including all patients who underwent colon or rectal resection for cancer with anastomosis was presented. Overall and cancer-specific survival rates and rates of local recurrence were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4892 patients were included, of which 2856 had completed 5-year follow-up. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 4.0%. Cox regression analysis accounting for differences in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumour stage demonstrated that anastomotic leak was associated with significantly worse 5-year overall survival (χ ² = 6.459, P = 0.011) for colon cancer, but only if early deaths were included. There was no difference in 5-year colon cancer-specific survival (χ ² = 0.582, P = 0.446) or local recurrence (χ ² = 0.735, P = 0.391). For rectal cancer, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (χ ² = 0.266, P = 0.606), cancer-specific survival (χ ² = 0.008, P = 0.928) or local recurrence (χ ² = 2.192, P = 0.139).

CONCLUSION

Anastomotic leak may reduce 5-year overall survival in colon cancer patients but does not appear to influence the 5-year overall survival in rectal cancer patients. There was no effect on local recurrence or cancer-specific survival.