Morbidity after laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery: a comparative analysis of morbidity in octogenarians and younger patients

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

A multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort study about short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the results of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) compared to open surgery (OP) for locally advanced mid-to-lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

From February 2008 to December 2014, we collected patient data with clinical stage II/III mid-to-lower rectal cancer who underwent resection with LAP or OP at 13 institutions associated with the Yokohama Clinical Oncology Group (YCOG). The short-term outcomes and long-term prognoses associated with LAP and OP were analyzed after adjusting for the patients' backgrounds using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Among 1091 eligible cases, a propensity score matching with six covariates-age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status category, tumor location, and clinical stage-extracted 237 cases each for the LAP and OP groups, respectively. After matching, there were no differences in background factors between the two groups except for the presence or absence of preoperative treatment. Operative time was significantly longer in the LAP group than that in the OP group (p < 0.001), while the amount of bleeding and the length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly lower in the LAP group than that in the OP group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences between groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. The 3-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 90.5% and 88.6% and 78.3% and 71.6% in the LAP and OP groups, respectively, which did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes and long-term prognoses of LAP in this cohort study indicated that LAP could be a therapeutic option for locally advanced rectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000040406.

Survival outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer: a two-center cohort study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND?>

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is commonly performed in China. However, compared with open surgery, the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery, especially the long-term survival, has not been sufficiently proved.

METHODS?>

Data of eligible patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer at Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between 2012 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term survival outcomes and short-term surgical safety were analysed with propensity score matching between groups.

RESULTS

Of 430 cases collated from two institutes, 103 matched pairs were analysed after propensity score matching. The estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (P = 0.019) and the operative time and hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopic group (both P < 0.001). The post-operative complications rate was 9.7% in the laparoscopic group and 10.7% in the open group (P = 0.818). No significant difference was observed between the laparoscopic group and the open group in the 5-year overall survival rate (75.7% vs 80.6%, P = 0.346), 5-year relapse-free survival rate (74.8% vs 76.7%, P = 0.527), or 5-year cancer-specific survival rate (79.6% vs 87.4%, P = 0.219). An elevated carcinoembryonic antigen, <12 harvested lymph nodes, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors affecting overall survival and relapse-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS?>

Our findings suggest that open surgery should still be the priority recommendation, but laparoscopic surgery is also an acceptable treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer: An analysis of the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA)

BACKGROUND

Advanced age is associated with worse outcomes after open rectal cancer surgery. However, not much is known about outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the elderly. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of MIS in elderly rectal cancer patients using the Bi-national Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) data from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).

METHODS

3451 patients were included, divided into three groups: <50 years (n = 364), 50-74 years (n = 2157) and ≥75 years (n = 930). Propensity-score matching was performed for the elderly group analysis to correct for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

MIS was performed in 52.9% of elderly patients, slightly lower than rates in <50 year and 50-74 year old groups (61% and 55.5%, respectively, p = 0.022). Elderly patients had more postoperative complications (p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of hospital stay (LOS; median 11 vs. 8 days for both other groups; p < 0.0001). Elderly patients had higher (y)pT-stages compared to both other groups (p < 0.0001) and were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (p < 0.0001). Propensity-score matched analysis of the elderly group showed a higher rate of superficial wound dehiscence and a longer LOS after open surgery compared to MIS (10.3% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.030; 12 days vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.001, respectively), with comparable short-term oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS is performed in just over half of elderly rectal cancer patients who are selected for elective rectal resection surgery in ANZ. When performed in the elderly, MIS appears safe and is associated with fewer wound complications and a shorter LOS.

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan

Background:

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is widely performed all over the world and several randomized controlled trials have been reported. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery has not been demonstrated sufficiently, especially for the low rectal area.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that laparoscopic primary tumor resection is safe and effective when compared with the open approach for locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods:

Data from patients with clinical stage II to III low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection were collected and analyzed. The operations were performed from 2010 to 2011. Short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis were analyzed with propensity score matching.

Results:

Of 1608 cases collated from 69 institutes, 1500 cases were eligible for analysis. The cases were matched into 482 laparoscopic and 482 open cases. The mean height of the tumor from the anal verge was 4.6 cm. Preoperative treatment was performed in 35% of the patients. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 5.2%. Estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (90 vs 625 mL, P < 0.001). Overall, the occurrence of complications after laparoscopic surgeries was less than that after open surgeries (30.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.005). Three-year overall survival rates were 89.9% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 86.7–92.4] and 90.4% (95% CI 87.4–92.8) in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively, and no significant difference was seen between the 2 groups. No significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the 2 groups (3-year RFS: 70.9%, 68.4 to 74.2 vs 71.8%, 67.5 to 75.7).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic surgery could be considered as a treatment option for advanced, low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, based on the short-term and long-term results of this large cohort study (UMIN-ID: UMIN000013919).

Laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer-is age an effect modifier for short- and long-term survival?

INTRODUCTION

Rectal cancer is a frequently diagnosed tumor worldwide. Various studies have shown the noninferiority or even slight superiority of laparoscopic resection. However, there is no clear recommendation on whether age should influence the choice of surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study compared outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients. Perioperative mortality and 5-year overall, relative, and recurrence-free survival rates were analyzed separately for three age groups. Data originate from 30 regional German cancer registries that cover approximately one quarter of the German population. All primary nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma cases with surgery between 2005 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. To compare survival rates, Kaplan-Meier analysis, a relative survival model, and multivariable Cox regression were used; a sensitivity analysis assessed bias by exclusion.

RESULTS

Ten thousand seven hundred fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The mean laparoscopy rate was 23.0% and increased over time. Analysis of 30-day postoperative mortality rates revealed advantages for laparoscopically treated patients, although the significance level was not reached in any age group. Regarding 5-year overall survival, laparoscopy generally seems to be the superior approach, whereas for recurrence-free survival, an age-dependent gradient in effect size was observed: with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 for laparoscopy, patients under 60 years benefitted more from the minimally invasive approach than older patients (septuagenarians, HR 0.923).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy shows similar results to the open approach in terms of postoperative survival in all age groups. Concerning long-term outcomes, younger patients benefitted most from the minimally invasive approach.

Long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open colon cancer resection: a high-quality population-based analysis in a Southern German district

Background

Over 20 years after the introduction of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer, many surgeons still prefer the open approach. Whereas randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have proven the oncologic safety of laparoscopy, long-term data depicting daily clinical routine are scarce.

Methods

This population-based cohort study compares 5-year overall, relative, and recurrence-free survival rates after laparoscopic and open colon carcinoma surgery. Data derive from an independent German cancer registry encompassing all tumor patients within a political district of 1.1 million inhabitants. The final analysis included 2669 patients with major elective resection of primary non-metastatic colonic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan–Meier analyses, relative survival models, and multivariate Cox regression. Sensitivity analysis quantified selection bias.

Results

The proportion of laparoscopic procedures increased from 9.7 to 25.8% in 2011 and dropped again to 15.8% at the end of observation period. Laparoscopy patients were younger, had a lower tumor stage, and were more likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy. Overall, relative, and recurrence-free survival was significantly superior or equivalent in Kaplan–Meier analysis (5-year overall survival rate open vs. laparoscopic: 69.0 vs. 80.2%, p < 0.001). The superiority of laparoscopy mostly remained stable after adjusting for confounders, although significance was only reached in T1-3 patients without lymph node metastases (overall survival: hazard ratio (HR) 0.654; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.446–0.958; p = 0.029).

Conclusion

Laparoscopy is a safe and promising alternative to the open approach in daily clinic practice. These favorable outcomes require future confirmation by high-quality studies outside the setting of RTCs.

Clinical and Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Open and Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The short-term benefits of laparoscopy for rectal surgery are equivocal. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) for laparoscopic and open rectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent elective rectal resection with primary anastomosis between January 2009 and March 2012 at two tertiary-care, university-affiliated institutions were identified. Patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into four groups, according to surgical approach (laparoscopic [lap] or open) and perioperative management (ERP or conventional care [CC]). Length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and hospital costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients were included in the analysis (201 open-CC, 34 lap-CC, 38 open-ERP, and 108 lap-ERP). Patients were mostly similar at baseline. ERPs significantly reduced median LOS after both open cases (open-CC 10 days versus open-ERP 7.5 days, P = .003) and laparoscopic cases (lap-CC 5 days versus lap-ERP 4.5 days, P = .046). ERPs also reduced variability in LOS compared with CC. There was no difference in postoperative complications with the use of ERPs (open-CC 51% versus open-ERP 50%, P = .419; lap-CC 32% versus lap-ERP 36%, P = .689). On multivariate analysis, both ERP (-3.6 days [95% confidence interval, CI -6.0 to -1.3]) and laparoscopy (-3.6 days [95% CI -5.9 to -1.0]) were independently associated with decreased LOS. Overall costs were only lower when lap-ERP was compared with open-CC (mean difference -2420 CAN$ [95% CI -5628 to -786]).

CONCLUSIONS

ERPs reduced LOS after rectal resections, and the combination of laparoscopy and ERPs significantly reduced overall costs compared to when neither strategy was used.

Is There Any Reason Not to Perform Standard Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision?

The curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is currently based on chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopy has developed considerably because of obvious clinical benefits such as reduced pain and shorter hospital stay. Recently, several prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up have showed that laparoscopy is noninferior to laparotomy with the same oncologic outcomes in terms of survival and local control rate. However, laparoscopic TME remains a challenging procedure requiring a high level of expertise and a long learning curve to ensure an adequate and safe resection. The only relative contraindication of laparoscopic rectal surgery is T4 rectal cancer extended beyond the plane of TME. In this situation, it is reasonable to consider an open resection to avoid an uncomplete resection. In obese and elderly patients, laparoscopic TME also provides the same benefits as in nonobese and younger patients but may be more difficult to achieve. This review summarizes current knowledge on the place of laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Pulmonary Complications after Surgery for Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients: Evaluation of Laparoscopic versus Open Approach from a Multicenter Study on 477 Consecutive Cases

Aim

To evaluate the impact of open or laparoscopic rectal surgery on pulmonary complications in elderly (>75 years old) patients.

Methods

Data from consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or open rectal surgery for cancer were collected prospectively from 3 institutions. Pulmonary complications were defined according to the ACS/NSQUIP definition.

Results

A total of 477 patients (laparoscopic group: 242, open group: 235) were included in the analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications were significantly more common after open surgery (8 out of 242 patients (3.3%) versus 23 out of 235 patients (9.8%); p = 0.005). In addition, PPC occurrence was associated with the increasing of postoperative pain (5.04 ± 1.62 versus 5.03 ± 1.58; p = 0.001) and the increasing of operative time (270.06 ± 51.49 versus 237.37 ± 65.97; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results are encouraging to consider laparoscopic surgery a safety and effective way to treat rectal cancer in elderly patients, highlighting that laparoscopic surgery reduces the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.

Estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) scoring system could provide preoperative advice on whether to undergo laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients with a high physiological risk

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery had been widely used for colorectal cancer patient and showed a favorable outcome on the postoperative morbidity rate. We attempted to evaluate physiological status of patients by mean of Estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) system and to analyze the difference variation of postoperative morbidity rate of open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in patients with different physiological status.In total 550 colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery treatment were included. E-PASS and some conventional scoring systems were reviewed to examine their mortality prediction ability. The preoperative risk score (PRS) in the E-PASS system was used to evaluate the physiological status of patients. The difference of postoperative morbidity rate between open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgeries was analyzed respectively in patients with different physiological status.E-PASS had better prediction ability than other conventional scoring systems in colorectal cancer surgeries. Postoperative morbidities were developed in 143 patients. The parameters in the E-PASS system had positive correlations with postoperative morbidity. The overall postoperative morbidity rate of laparoscopic surgeries was lower than open surgeries (19.61% and 28.46%), but the postoperative morbidity rate of laparoscopic surgeries increased more significantly than in open surgery as PRS increased. When PRS was more than 0.7, the postoperative morbidity rate of laparoscopic surgeries would exceed the postoperative morbidity rate of open surgeries.The E-PASS system was capable to evaluate the physiological and surgical risk of colorectal cancer surgery. PRS could assist preoperative decision-making on the surgical method. Colorectal cancer patients who were assessed with a low physiological risk by PRS would be safe to undergo laparoscopic surgery. On the contrary, surgeons should make decisions prudently on the operation method for patient with a high physiological risk.

Pathologic response grade after long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation does not influence morbidity in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer resected by laparoscopy

PURPOSE

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy have lower rates of recurrence compared to those who do not. However, the influences of the pathologic response on surgical complications and survival remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival.

METHODS

This was a comparative study of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in two European tertiary hospitals between 2004 and 2014. Patients with and without pathologic complete responses were compared in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and survival.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with complete response (ypT0N0) were compared with 141 patients who exhibited non-complete response. No group differences were observed in the postoperative mortality or morbidity rates. The median follow-up time was 57 months (range 1-121). Over this period, 11 (5.8 %) patients, all of whom were in the non-complete response group, exhibited local recurrence. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were significantly better in the complete response group, 92.5 vs. 75.3 % (p = 0.004) and 89 vs. 73.4 % (p = 0.002), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complication rate after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is not associated with the pathologic response grade to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.