Whether partial colectomy is oncologically safe for patients with transverse colon cancer: a large population-based study

Association of hemicolectomy with survival in stage II colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

To compare the oncological survival outcomes of partial colectomy (PC) and hemicolectomy (HC) in patients with stage II colon cancer. A total of 18,795 patients with stage II colon cancer who underwent hemicolectomy (n = 12,022) or partial colectomy (n = 6773) from 2010 to 2019 were included in the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the two groups, and the threshold of harvested lymph nodes was determined. The results showed that age, gender, race, tumor site, scope of regional lymph nodes, postoperative chemotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy, harvested lymph nodes, and tumor size were significantly different between the PC and HC groups (all P < 0.05). The OS rate was slightly lower in hemicolectomy patients than in partial colectomy patients (69.9% vs. 74.5%, respectively, P < 0.001), but CSS was similar between the two groups (87.9% vs. 88.1%, respectively, P = 0.32). After propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, the OS and CSS rates in the two groups were significantly different (CSS 84.3% vs. 88.0%, P < 0.001; OS 62.2% vs. 72.5%, P < 0.001). The survminer R package determined that the optimum threshold for the harvested lymph node count in stage II colon cancer patients was 16. CSS was significantly different between patients with ≥ 12 lymph nodes harvested and patients with ≥ 16 lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.043). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression and survival analyses of stage II colon cancer patients showed that the survival benefit of stage II colon cancer patients receiving partial colectomy was superior to that of patients receiving hemicolectomy. Partial colectomy has significant oncological benefits over hemicolectomy in the treatment of stage II colon cancer patients, even in the case of pT4b or tumor deposits. Removal of 16 lymph nodes during colectomy for stage II colon cancer correlated with improved survival, and this threshold was more effective than the standard threshold of 12 lymph nodes in distinguishing between patients with good and poor prognoses.

Usefulness of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system for laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a Japanese multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer (TCC) can be technically demanding due to the anatomical complexity of the region. In Japan, the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) was established to improve the skill of laparoscopic surgeons and further develop surgical teams. We examined the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic colectomy for TCC and evaluated the effects of the Japanese ESSQS in facilitating this approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 136 patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for TCC between April 2016 and December 2021. Patients were divided into an ESSQS-qualified surgeon group (surgery performed by an ESSQS-qualified surgeon, n = 52) and a non ESSQS-qualified surgeon (surgery performed by a non ESSQS-unqualified surgeon, n = 84). Clinicopathological and surgical features were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 37 patients (27.2%). The proportion of patients who developed postoperative complications was lower in the ESSQS-qualified surgeon group (8.0%) than that in the non ESSQS-qualified surgeon group (34.5%; p < 0.017). Multivariate analysis revealed "Operation by ESSQS-qualified surgeon surgeon" (odds ratio (OR) 0.360, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.140-0.924; p = 0.033), blood loss (OR 4.146, 95% CI 1.688-10.184; p = 0.002), and clinical N status (OR 4.563, 95% CI 1.814-11.474; p = 0.001) as factors independently associated with postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The present multicenter study confirmed the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic colectomy for TCC and revealed that ESSQS-qualified surgeon achieved better surgical outcomes.

Mid-transverse Location in Primary Colon Tumor: A Poor Prognostic Factor?

BACKGROUND

The location of colonic tumors has been linked to different clinical and oncologic outcomes. Transverse colon cancers are generally included as right colon cancers. Furthermore, hepatic and splenic flexure tumors are usually included as components of the transverse colon.

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed at comparing the clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes between mid-transverse and right and left colon cancers and determining the prognostic impact of the primary tumor location in the mid-transverse colon.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

Two specialized colorectal centers were included.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent curative surgery for colon cancer were analyzed. Tumors located in the transverse colon, excluding the flexures, were defined as mid-transverse colon cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic characteristics, operative outcomes, pathologic results, and long-term outcomes were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Of the 487 patients, 41 (8.4%) had mid-transverse, 191 (39.2%) had right, and 255 (52.4%) had left colon cancers. For mid-transverse colon cancers, the mean length of hospital stay, mean length of the resected specimen, and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes were significantly higher. For patients with stage I to III cancer, the 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse in the mid-transverse colon cancers than in the right and left colon cancers (overall survival: 55.5% vs 82.8% vs 85.9%, p = 0.004, and disease-free survival; 47.7% vs 72.4% vs 79.5%, p = 0.003). After adjustment for other clinicopathologic factors, mid-transverse colon cancers were significantly associated with a poor prognosis (HR = 2.19 [95% CI, 1.25-3.83]; p = 0.006).

LIMITATIONS

Molecular and genetic information were unavailable in this retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

In our case series, colon cancers located in the mid-transverse colon showed poorer prognosis than cancers in other locations. The impact of tumor location in the mid-transverse colon on prognosis, including molecular and genetic markers, should be investigated further in prospective studies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B631.

LOCALIZACIN TRANSVERSA MEDIA EN EL TUMOR DE COLON PRIMARIO UN FACTOR DE MAL PRONSTICO

ANTECEDENTES:La ubicación de los tumores de colon se ha relacionado con diferentes resultados clínicos y oncológicos. Los cánceres de colon transverso se incluyen generalmente como cánceres de colon derecho. Además, los tumores del ángulo hepático y esplénico suelen incluirse como un componente del colon transverso.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar las características clínico-patológicas y los resultados a largo plazo entre los cánceres de colon transverso medio y derecho e izquierdo y determinar el impacto pronóstico de la ubicación del tumor primario en el colon transverso medio.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Se incluyeron dos centros colorrectales especializados.PACIENTES:Se analizaron los pacientes que fueron sometidos a cirugía curativa por cáncer de colon. Los tumores ubicados en el colon transverso, excluidos los ángulos, se definieron como "cánceres de colon transverso medio".PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO VOLARACION:Las características demográficas, los resultados quirúrgicos, los resultados patológicos y los resultados a largo plazo fueron las principales medidas de resultado valoracion.RESULTADOS:De los 487 pacientes, 41 (8,4%) tenían cáncer de colon transverso medio, 191 (39,2%) derecho y 255 (52,4%) cáncer de colon izquierdo. Para los cánceres de colon transverso medio, la duración media de la estancia hospitalaria, la duración de la muestra resecada y el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos fueron significativamente mayores. Para los pacientes en estadio I-III, las tasas de supervivencia general y sin enfermedad a 5 años fueron significativamente peores en los cánceres de colon transverso medio que en los cánceres de colon derecho e izquierdo (supervivencia general: 55,5% frente versus a 82,8% frente versus a 85,9%, p = 0,004 y supervivencia libre de enfermedad; 47,7% frente a 72,4% frente a 79,5%, p = 0,003, respectivamente). Después del ajuste por otros factores clínico-patológicos, los cánceres de colon transverso medio se asociaron significativamente con un pronóstico desfavorable (Razón de riesgo: 2,19; intervalo de confianza del 95%: 1,25-3,83; p = 0,006).LIMITACIONES:La información molecular y genética no estuvo disponible en este estudio retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En nuestra serie de casos, los cánceres de colon localizados en el colon transverso medio mostraron un peor pronóstico que los cánceres en otras localizaciones. El impacto de la ubicación del tumor en el colon transverso medio sobre el pronóstico, incluidos los marcadores moleculares y genéticos, debe investigarse más a fondo en estudios prospectivos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B631. (Traducción-Dr Adrián Ortega).

Distribution of lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes of mid-transverse colon cancer: extended versus transverse colectomy

AIM

The optimal surgical method for cancer of the mid-transverse colon has not been well established. The present study aimed to explore the distribution of lymph node metastasis and compare the outcomes of extended and transverse colectomies for cancer of the mid-transverse colon.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the data of patients with cancer of the mid-transverse colon treated with either an extended hemicolectomy (right or left) or a transverse colectomy. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to rule out selection bias, and short-term and survival outcomes were compared. The distribution of lymph node metastasis was also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were included, 70 of whom underwent an extended colectomy while 37 underwent a transverse colectomy. There were no significant differences in the operation time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, 3-year disease-free survival (86.5% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.675) and 5-year overall survival (87.4% vs. 93.0%, P = 0.349) between the two groups after propensity score matching. However, metastases were observed in the lymph nodes along the right colic artery (pericolic [#211], 14.0%; intermediate [#212], 8.2%; apical [#213], 9.8%) in the extended colectomy group.

CONCLUSION

Extended and transverse colectomies showed similar short-term and long-term outcomes for mid-transverse colon cancer. However, care should be taken to determine the extent of resection considering the possibility of metastatic lymph nodes along the right colic artery.

Segmental versus extended colectomy for tumours of the transverse colon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

There is no consensus on the appropriate extent of oncological resection for tumours of the transverse colon. Concerns regarding tumour factors such as pattern of lymph node spread and technical factors such as anastomotic perfusion lead to a variety of procedures being performed.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for published studies examining outcomes following segmental versus extended colectomy for transverse colon tumours was performed adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Random effects methods were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Seven comparative series examining outcomes in 3395 patients were identified. Segmental colectomy results in shorter operating times (mean difference 15.80 min, 95% CI -20.98 to -10.62, P < 0.001) and less ileus (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.81, P = 0.004). There was no difference in length of hospital stay (mean difference 1.53 days, 95% CI -3.79 to 0.73, P = 0.18). Extended colectomy results in a lower rate of anastomotic leak (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, P = 0.04). There are fewer nodes retrieved in segmental colectomy (mean difference 7.60 nodes, 95% CI -9.60 to -5.61, P < 0.001) but no difference in disease recurrence (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, P = 0.56) or overall survival (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.4, P = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Available data are limited due to a lack of randomized controlled trials. However, based on current evidence, segmental resection for transverse colon tumours is associated with less ileus but lower lymph node yields and higher anastomotic leak rates. Length of stay is similar. Oncological outcomes are equivalent.

Surgical Approach to Transverse Colon Cancer: Analysis of Current Practice and Oncological Outcomes Using the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment for transverse colon cancer involves either extended colectomy or segmental resection, depending on the location of the tumor and surgeon perspective. However, the oncological safety of segmental resection has not yet been established in large cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare segmental resection versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer in terms of oncological outcomes.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted using a nationwide cohort.

PATIENTS

A total of 66,062 patients who underwent colectomy with curative intent for transverse stage I to III adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were divided in 2 groups based on the type of surgery received (extended versus segmental resection). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate within 30 days of surgical discharge.

RESULTS

Extended colectomy was performed in 44,417 (67.2%) patients, whereas 21,645 (32.8%) patients underwent segmental resection. Extended colectomy was associated with lower survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10; p < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that extended resection was independently associated with poorer survival in mid transverse colon cancers (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; p < 0.001) and in stage III tumors (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; p < 0.001). The number of at least 12 harvested lymph nodes was an independent predictor of improved survival in both overall and subgroup analyses.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

Extended colectomy was not associated with a survival advantage compared with segmental resection. On the contrary, extended colectomy was associated with slightly poorer survival in mid transverse cancers and locally advanced tumors. Segmental resection was found to be safe when appropriate margins and adequate lymph node harvest were achieved. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454.

ABORDAJE QUIRRGICO DEL CNCER DE COLON TRANSVERSO ANLISIS DE LA PRCTICA ACTUAL Y LOS RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS UTILIZANDO LA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL DE CNCER

ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico para el cáncer de colon transverso implica colectomía extendida o resección segmentaria, según la ubicación del tumor y la perspectiva del cirujano. Sin embargo, la seguridad oncológica de la resección segmentaria aún no se ha establecido en estudios de cohortes grandes.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la resección segmentaria versus la colectomía extendida para el cáncer de colon transverso en términos de resultados oncológicos.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó utilizando una cohorte a nivel nacional.PACIENTES:Un total de 66,062 pacientes que se sometieron a colectomía con intención curativa por adenocarcinoma de colon transverso en estadio I-III fueron identificados en la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer (2004-2015).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los pacientes se dividieron en dos grupos según el tipo de cirugía recibida (resección extendida versus resección segmentaria). El resultado primario fue la supervivencia global. Los resultados secundarios fueron la mortalidad a los 30 y 90 días, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la tasa de reingreso dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta quirúrgica.RESULTADOS:Se realizó colectomía extendida en 44,417 (67.2%) casos, mientras que 21,645 (32.8%) pacientes fueron sometidos a resección segmentaria. La colectomía extendida se asoció con una menor supervivencia en el análisis multivariado (HR 1.07 IC 95% 1.04-1.10; p <0.001). El análisis de subgrupos mostró que la resección extendida se asoció de forma independiente con una menor supervivencia en los cánceres de colon transverso medio (HR 1.08 IC 95% 1.04-1.12; p <0.001) y en tumores en estadio III (HR 1.11 IC 95% 1.04-1.18; p <0.001). Un número de al menos 12 ganglios linfáticos cosechados fue un predictor independiente de una mejor supervivencia en los análisis general y de subgrupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:La colectomía extendida no se asoció con una ventaja de supervivencia en comparación con la resección segmentaria. Por el contrario, la colectomía extendida se asoció con una supervivencia levemente menor en cánceres de colon transverso medio y tumores localmente avanzados. Se encontró que la resección segmentaria es segura cuando se logran los márgenes apropiados y la cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454.

Surgical management of adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon: What should be the extent of resection?

Transverse colon, owing its origin to midgut and hindgut and harbouring a flexure at both ends, continues to pose a surgical challenge. When compared to the rest of the colon, transverse colon adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon. These cancers usually present late and lie in close proximity to the stomach, omentum, and pancreas. Adequate lymphadenectomy entails dissection around and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Hence, resectional surgery for transverse colon carcinoma is considered difficult. This is more so because of the variation of arterial and venous anatomy. From this perspective, the surgeon is tempted to perform a more radical operation like extended right or left hemicolectomy to secure an adequate lymphadenectomy. Such a cancer has also been dealt with a more limited transverse colectomy with colo-colic anastomosis. For all these reasons, patients with transverse colon adenocarcinoma were excluded from randomised trials which compared laparoscopic resection with traditional open operation. Surgical literature is yet to establish a definite operation for transverse colon cancer and the exact procedure is often dictated by surgeon's preference. This is primarily because this is an uncommon cancer. The rapid adoption of laparoscopic operation favoured extended colectomy as transverse colectomy can be difficult by minimally invasive technique. However, in the recent past, cohort studies and meta-analyses have shown equivalent oncological outcome between transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. It is time to resurrect transverse colectomy and consider it equivalent to its radical counterpart for cancers around the mid-transverse colon.

Mid-transverse colon cancer and extended versus transverse colectomy: Results of the Italian society of surgical oncology colorectal cancer network (SICO CCN) multicenter collaborative study

INTRODUCTION

Transverse colon cancer (TCC) is poorly studied, and TCC cases are often excluded from large prospective randomized trials because of their complexity and their potentially high complication rate. The best surgical approach for TCC has yet to be established. The aim of this large retrospective multicenter Italian series is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of both hemicolectomy and transverse colectomy in order to identify the best surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with mid-transverse colon cancer treated with a segmental colon resection or an extended hemicolectomy (right or left) between 2006 and 2016 in 28 high-volume (more than 70 procedures/year) Italian referral centers for colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

The study included 1529 patients, 388 of whom underwent a segmental resection while 1141 underwent an extended resection. A higher number of complications has been reported in the segmental group than in the extended group (30.1% versus 23.6%; p 0.010). In 42 cases the main complication was the anastomotic leak (4.4% versus 2.2%; p 0.020). Recovery outcomes also showed statistical differences: time to first flatus (p 0.014), time to first mobilization (p 0.040), and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the extended group. Even if overall survival were similar between the groups (95.1% versus 97%; p 0.384), 3-year disease-free survival worsened after segmental resection (78.1% versus 86.2%; p 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, an extended right colon resection for TCC seems to be surgically safer and more oncologically valid.

Short- and long-term outcomes after transverse versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Provide the surgeon with a tool to decide the best surgical approach to transverse colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between transverse colectomy and extended hemicolectomy for patients with tumours of the transverse colon.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms and/or MeSH terms in all possible combinations: transverse, transversus, colectomy, hemicolectomy, segmental resection, transverse colon cancer. The last search was performed on 10 May 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent authors (Mi.M. and N.V.) analysed each article and performed the data extraction independently. In case of disagreement, a third investigator was consulted (Ma.M.). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data regarding sample size, major clinical and demographic variables, oncologic outcomes and postoperative recovery and complications were extracted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcomes analysed were anastomotic leakage, early mortality, hospital stay, operative time, overall complications rate, wound infection, harvested nodes and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were found between transverse colectomy and extended hemicolectomy in short- and long-term outcomes; our results revealed no differences in disease-free survival between the two surgical approaches. As expected, a statistically significant difference was found in favour of extended hemicolectomy in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review with meta-analysis focus on the two major approaches to transverse colon cancer. The reviewed evidence suggests that a conservative approach to transverse colon cancer is feasible and safe and oncological outcomes are comparable between a conservative and an extended surgical procedure.