Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period.

METHODS

Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12 months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks.

RESULTS

Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery Quality in Manitoba: A Population-Based Descriptive Analysis

Unwarranted clinical variation in healthcare impacts access, productivity, performance, and outcomes. A strategy proposed for reducing unwarranted clinical variation is to ensure that population-based data describing the current state of health care services are available to clinicians and healthcare decision-makers. The objective of this study was to measure variation in colorectal cancer surgical treatment patterns and surgical quality in Manitoba and identify areas for improvement. This descriptive study included individuals aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with invasive cancer (adenocarcinoma) of the colon or rectum between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Laparoscopic surgery was higher in colon cancer (24.1%) compared to rectal cancer (13.6%). For colon cancer, the percentage of laparoscopic surgery ranged from 12.9% to 29.2%, with significant differences by regional health authority (RHA) of surgery. In 86.1% of colon cancers, ≥12 lymph nodes were removed. In Manitoba, the negative circumferential resection margin for rectal cancers was 96.9%, and ranged from 96.0% to 100.0% between RHAs. The median time between first colonoscopy and resection was 40 days for individuals with colon cancer. This study showed that high-quality colorectal cancer surgery is being conducted in Manitoba along with some variation and gaps in quality. As a result of this work, a formal structure for ongoing measuring and reporting surgical quality has been established in Manitoba. Quality improvement initiatives have been implemented based on these findings and periodic assessments of colorectal cancer surgery quality will continue.

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial

BACKGROUND

Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months.

METHODS

Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months.

RESULTS

About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.

Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Rectum Amputation: a Clinical, Intraoperative, and Short-term Outcome Comparative Study

Objective: To evaluate and compare laparoscopic and conventional open rectum amputation procedures using clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological criteria.

Methods: Fifty-nine patients with lower rectal and anorectal cancer were included in a retrospective study, conducted between 2014 and 2017. Patients underwent open or laparoscopic rectum amputation surgery and were divided into two groups: group 1 – laparoscopic amputation group (LAG) and group 2 – open amputation group (OAG). The clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes and oncological results were compared between the two groups.

Results: We found a significantly smaller intraoperative blood loss (325 mL vs. 538.29 mL, p = 0.0002), earlier return of bowel motility (2.41 days vs. 3.10 days, p = 0.036), shorter hospital stays (10.08 days vs. 12.66 days, p = 0.03), and a higher number of lymph nodes removed during surgery (12.33 nodes for LAG vs. 9.98 nodes for OAG, p = 0.049). In the open surgery group we found shorter durations of surgery (199.58 minutes for LAG vs. 157.87 minutes for OAG, p = 0.0046).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic rectum amputation is a technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the benefits and disadvantages of this surgery, with comparable clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological results compared to the conventional open rectum amputation procedure.

Defining the Role of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Locally Advanced Rectal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

National examination of open proctectomy (OP), laparoscopic proctectomy (LP), and robotic proctectomy (RP) in pathological outcomes and overall survival (OS).

BACKGROUND

Surgical management for rectal adenocarcinoma is evolving towards utilization of LP and RP. However, the oncological impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the National Cancer Database identified patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2014, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant therapy. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Multivariate analysis was used to compare pathological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate long-term OS.

RESULTS

Of 6313 cases identified, 53.8% underwent OP, 31.8% underwent LP, and 14.3% underwent RP. Higher-volume academic/research and comprehensive community centers combined to perform 80% of laparoscopic cases and 83% of robotic cases. In an intent-to-treat model, multivariate analysis demonstrated superior circumferential margin negativity rates with LP compared with OP (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.77, P = 0.036). Cox proportional-hazard modeling demonstrated a lower death hazard ratio for LP compared with OP (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.99, P = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 5-year OS of 81% in LP compared with 78% in RP and 76% in OP (P = 0.0198).

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced colorectal specialists treating selected patients, LP may be a valuable operative technique that is associated with oncological benefits. Further exploration of pathological outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive conclusions regarding comparisons of open and minimally invasive technique.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer were compared by analysing a total of 26 end points which included intraoperative and postoperative recovery, short-term morbidity and mortality, late morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHOD

We searched for published randomized clinical trials, presenting a comparison between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer using the following electronic databases: PubMed, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis incorporating a total of 1544 patients, having laparoscopic (N = 841) and open rectal resection (N = 703) for cancer. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss and in the number of blood transfusions, earlier resuming solid diet, return of bowel function and a shorter duration of hospital stay. We also found a significant advantage for laparoscopy in the reduction of post-operative abdominal bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and late morbidity. No differences were found in terms of intra-operative and late oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis indicates that laparoscopy benefits patients with shorter hospital stay, earlier return of bowel function, reduced blood loss and number of blood transfusions and lower rates of abdominal postoperative bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and other late morbidities.