Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: the verdict is not final yet!

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence After Laparoscopic-assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of laparoscopic rectal resection (Lap) versus open laparotomy and rectal resection (Open) for rectal cancer on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Although a Lap approach to colon cancer surgery may offer similar oncological outcomes to Open with potentially less morbidity, this remains to be clearly established for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter noninferiority phase 3 trial of 475 patients with T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma <15 cm from anal verge, given Lap or Open and followed for a minimum 2 years to assess LRR, DFS, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Secondary endpoint analyses included 450 patients (95%) without metastases at baseline (mean age 64; 34% women) who received Lap (n = 225) or Open (n = 225). Median follow-up was 3.2 years (range: 0.1-5.4 yrs). LRR cumulative incidence at 2 years: Lap 5.4%; Open 3.1% [difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.5% to 6.1%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95% CI, 0.74-3.9]. DFS at 2 years: Lap 80%; Open 82% (difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, -9.3% to 5.4%; HR for recurrence or death, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81-1.68; P = 0.41). After adjustment for baseline factors HR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.7-1.6). OS at 2 years: Lap 94%; Open 93% (difference 0.9%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer did not differ significantly from open surgery in effects on 2-year recurrence or DFS and OS. Confidence intervals included potentially clinically important differences favoring open resection, so that the combination of primary and secondary study endpoints may not support laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer as a routine standard of care and further follow-up is required.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00-0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.