Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015)

Progress of MRI in predicting the circumferential resection margin of rectal cancer: A narrative review

Rectal cancer (RC) is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide, and the status of its circumferential resection margin (CRM) is of paramount significance for treatment strategies and prognosis. CRM involvement is defined as tumor touching or within 1 mm from the outermost part of tumor or outer border of the mesorectal or lymph node deposits to the resection margin. The incidence of involved CRM varied from 5.4 % to 36 %, which may associate with an in consistent definition of CRM, the quality of surgeries, and the different examination modalities. Although T and N status are essential factors in determining whether a patient should receive neoadjuvant therapy before surgery, CRM status is a powerful predictor of local and distant recurrence as well as survival rate. This review explores the significance of CRM, the various assessment methods, and the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and artificial intelligence-based MRI in predicting CRM status. MRI showed potential advantage in predicting CRM status with a high sensitivity and specificity compared to computed tomography (CT). We also discuss MRI advancements in RC imaging, including conventional MRI with body coil, high-resolution MRI with phased-array coil, and endorectal MRI. Along with a discussion of artificial intelligence-based MRI techniques to predict the CRM status of RCs before and after treatments.

Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation

OPINION STATEMENT

The introduction of total mesorectal excision into the radical surgery of rectal cancer has significantly improved the oncological outcome with longer survival and lower local recurrence. Traditional treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer, relying on radical surgery, while effective, take their own set of risks, including surgical complications, potential damage to the anus, and surrounding structure owing to the pursuit of thorough resection. The progress of operating methods as well as the integration of systemic therapies and radiotherapy into the peri-operative period, particularly the exciting clinical complete response of patients after neoadjuvant treatment, have paved the way for organ preservation strategy. The non-inferiority oncological outcome of "watch and wait" compared with radical surgery underscores the potential of organ preservation not only to control local recurrence but also to reduce the need for treatments followed by structure destruction, hopefully improving the long-term quality of life. Radical radiotherapy provides another treatment option for patients unwilling or unable to undergo surgery. Organ preservation points out the direction of treatment for distal rectal cancer, while additional researches are needed to answer remaining questions about its optimal use.

Impact of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Literature is lacking on the impact of advancements in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on outcomes for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (GEP-NECs). Herein, we compared perioperative and oncologic outcomes among patients with GEP-NECs undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic resection.

METHODS

Patients with GEP-NECs diagnosed 2010-2019 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting method to account for selection bias. Patients were stratified by surgical approach; and pairwise comparisons were conducted by analyzing short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Receipt of MIS increased from 34.2% in 2010 to 67.5 % in 2019. Altogether, 6560 patients met study criteria: 3444 (52.5%) underwent open resection, 2783 (42.4%) underwent laparoscopic resection and 333 (5.1%) underwent robotic resection. Compared with open resection, laparoscopic or robotic resection were associated with shorter post-operative length of stay, reduced 30-day and 90-day post-operative mortality, and prolonged overall survival (OS). Compared with laparoscopic resection, robotic resection was associated with reduced 90-day post-operative mortality, however, there was no significant difference in OS.

CONCLUSION

This NCDB analysis demonstrates that MIS approaches for treating GEP-NECs have become more common, with improved perioperative mortality, shorter post-operative length of stay and favorable OS, compared with open resection.

The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.

RESULTS

Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).

Prevalence and safety of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors in Japan

Aim

The National Health Insurance system has reimbursed robotic gastrointestinal surgery since April 2018 in Japan. Additionally, strict facility and surgeon standards were established by the government and the academic society. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and safety of robotic surgery using a Japanese nationwide web‐based database.

Methods

Patients who underwent the following robotic surgeries for malignant tumors in 2018 were included: esophagectomy (RE), total gastrectomy (RTG), distal gastrectomy (RDG), proximal gastrectomy (RPG), low anterior resection (RLAR), and rectal resections other than RLAR (RRR). The number of cases and surgical mortality rates each month were calculated to evaluate the prevalence and safety of robotic procedures.

Results

A total of 3281 patients underwent robotic gastrointestinal surgery. The monthly number of robotic surgeries nearly doubled in April 2018 when they were initially reimbursed by the National Health Insurance system. Operative mortality rates were 0.9%, 0.4%, 0.2%, and 2.8% for RE (n = 330), RTG (n = 239), RDG (n = 1167), and RPG (n = 109), respectively. No mortality was observed in RLAR (n = 1062) or RRR (n = 374).

Conclusion

Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors was safely introduced into daily clinical practice along with rigorous surgeon and facility standards in Japan.

Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery has become a desired modality for performing colectomy; however, unplanned conversion to an open procedure may be associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine predictors and consequences of unplanned conversion to open in a large, high fidelity data set. A retrospective analysis of 11 061 robotic colectomies was conducted using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2012-2017 database. Predictors of conversion and the effect of conversion on outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression resulting in risk-adjusted odds ratios of conversion and morbidity/mortality. Overall, 10 372 (93.8%) patients underwent successful robotic colectomy, and 689 (6.2%) had an unplanned conversion. Predictors of conversion included age ≥ 65 years, male gender, obesity, functional status not independent, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) classification IV-V, non-oncologic indication, emergency case, smoking, recent weight loss, bleeding disorder, and preoperative organ space infection. Conversion is an independent risk factor for mortality, overall morbidity, cardiac morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, renal morbidity, venous thromboembolism morbidity, wound morbidity, sepsis, bleeding, readmission, return to the operating room, and extended length of stay (LOS). Unplanned conversion to open during robotic colectomy is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality.

Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Real-world comparison of curative open, laparoscopic and robotic resections for sigmoid and rectal cancer-single center experience

There has been an increase in the utilization of robotic surgery in addition to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer. One hundred and forty-seven patients (open n = 48, laparoscopic n = 49, robotic n = 50) undergoing curative resections by two surgeons between 2013 and 2020 were included. Data analyzed included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, length of stay, post-operative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results, including total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and lymph node (LN) yield. Median age of population was 68 years (IQR 59-73), majority (68%) were males. Median distance from anal verge in the robotic surgery group was 8 cm, compared to 15 and 14.5 cm in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.029, (laparoscopic vs robotic, p = 0.005 and open vs robotic, p = 0.027). Proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy in robotic surgery group was higher, p = 0.04. In sub-group of tumors between 3 and 7 cm from anal verge more patients in the robotic surgery group had sphincter preservation, p = 0.006. Length of stay, maximum C-reactive protein, and white blood cell rise favored minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery. There were no differences in post-operative complications, lymph node yield or CRM positivity rate between the three groups. Robotic surgery approach is safe and allows sphincter preservation without compromising TME quality in rectal cancer surgery.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.