Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

While several trials have compared laparoscopic to open surgery for colon cancer showing similar oncological results, oncological quality of laparoscopic versus open rectal resection is not well investigated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses of short-term (rate of complete resections, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin positivity) and long-term (recurrence, disease-free and overall survival) oncologic results were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were identified including 3528 patients. Patients in the open resection group had significantly more complete resections (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51-0.97; p = 0.03) and a higher number of resected lymph nodes (mean difference - 0.92; 95% CI - 1.08 to 0.75; p < 0.001). No differences were detected in the frequency of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.10; p = 0.18). Furthermore, no significant differences of long-term oncologic outcome parameters after 5 years including locoregional recurrence (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.44-2.05; p = 0.89), disease-free survival (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.84-1.58; p = 0.36), and overall survival (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76-1.41; p = 0.82) were found. Most trials exhibited a relevant risk of bias and several studies provided no information on the surgical expertise of the participating surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Differences in oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open rectal surgery for rectal cancer were detected for the complete resection rate and the number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the open approach. No statistically significant differences were found in oncologic long-term outcome parameters.

Transanal transabdominal TME: how far can we push it?

Over many decades, advances in surgical technology, such as the use of the electrocautery Bovie, development of minimally invasive and advanced endoscopic platforms and the ability to create and maintain pneumorectum have propelled surgical techniques forward to today, with development of the transanal total mesorectal excision TME (taTME) for en bloc resection of rectal cancers. The transanal platform offers, for now, a viable alternative to perform safe and oncologically sound TME, especially favorable in cases of low rectal lesions in a narrow pelvis post neoadjuvant treatment. The aspiration of the colorectal community remains to continue to push the operative boundaries whilst maintaining safe oncological principals with the best possible functional outcomes for patients. In this article we review this evolving technique and focus on future directions.

Novel biomarkers for patient stratification in colorectal cancer: A review of definitions, emerging concepts, and data

Colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment has become more personalised, incorporating a combination of the individual patient risk assessment, gene testing, and chemotherapy with surgery for optimal care. The improvement of staging with high-resolution imaging has allowed more selective treatments, optimising survival outcomes. The next step is to identify biomarkers that can inform clinicians of expected prognosis and offer the most beneficial treatment, while reducing unnecessary morbidity for the patient. The search for biomarkers in CRC has been of significant interest, with questions remaining on their impact and applicability. The study of biomarkers can be broadly divided into metabolic, molecular, microRNA, epithelial-to-mesenchymal-transition (EMT), and imaging classes. Although numerous molecules have claimed to impact prognosis and treatment, their clinical application has been limited. Furthermore, routine testing of prognostic markers with no demonstrable influence on response to treatment is a questionable practice, as it increases cost and can adversely affect expectations of treatment. In this review we focus on recent developments and emerging biomarkers with potential utility for clinical translation in CRC. We examine and critically appraise novel imaging and molecular-based approaches; evaluate the promising array of microRNAs, analyze metabolic profiles, and highlight key findings for biomarker potential in the EMT pathway.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer (LRC) is performed worldwide. However, APR involves technical difficulties and often causes intractable perineal complications. Therefore, a novel and secure technique during APR is required to overcome these critical issues. Although the usefulness of the endoscopic trans-anal approach has been documented, no series of the endoscopic trans-perineal approach during laparoscopic APR for LRC has been reported.

METHODS

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) has been used during laparoscopic APR in our institution since April 2014. TpMIS is defined as an endoscopic trans-perineal approach using a single-port device and laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients with LRC who underwent laparoscopic APR at our institution from February 2011 to June 2017 and compared the outcomes of the patients who underwent TpMIS [trans-perineal APR (TpAPR) group, n = 21] versus the conventional trans-perineal approach (conventional group, n = 29). We investigated our experiences with TpMIS in detail and evaluated the safety and utility of TpMIS for patients with LRC. Moreover, major features and difficulties of TpMIS were examined from a surgical viewpoint.

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss (median (range) 55 (10-600) vs. 120 (20-1650) ml) and severe perineal wound infection (Clavien-Dindo grade 3, 0 vs. 5 cases) were significantly lower in the TpAPR than conventional group. TpMIS led to a shortened hospital stay (median (range), 14 (10-74) vs. 23 (10-84) days), and neither mortality nor conversion to open surgery occurred in the TpAPR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnified visualization via endoscopy provided more accurate dissection and less blood loss during surgery. Minimal skin incisions enabled a reduction in postoperative perineal complications, and consequently shortened the hospital stay. TpMIS during laparoscopic APR is safe and beneficial for patients with LRC.

Does obesity impact postoperative outcomes following robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Obesity has been identified as a risk factor for both conversion and severe postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection. Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is proposed to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of our study was to determine if obesity remains a risk factor for severe morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection.

PATIENTS

This study was a retrospective review of a prospective database. A total of 183 patients undergoing restorative RAS for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016 were divided into 2 groups: control (BMI < 30 kg/m²; n = 125) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; n = 58). Clinicopathologic data, 30-day postoperative morbidity, and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. The main outcome was severe postoperative morbidity defined as any complication graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3.

RESULTS

Control and obese groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Severe complications were observed in 9 (7%) and 4 (7%) patients, respectively (p > 0.99). Obesity did not impact conversion, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, or readmission but was significantly associated with increased postoperative morbidity (29 vs. 45%; p = 0.04) and especially more postoperative ileus (11 vs. 26%; p = 0.01). Obesity and male gender were the two independent risk factors for postoperative overall morbidity (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.02-3.94; p = 0.04 and OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.10-4.76; p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

‎Obesity did not impact severe morbidity or conversion rate following RAS for rectal cancer but remained a risk factor for overall morbidity and especially postoperative ileus.

The Pattern of Defects in Mesorectal Specimens: Is There a Difference between Transanal and Laparoscopic Approaches?

BACKGROUND:

Total mesorectal excision has evolved from open to minimally invasive techniques. To overcome difficulties in the lowest part of the pelvis, transanal total mesorectal excision was introduced and has gained acceptance in the recent years. The results of transanal total mesorectal excision seem to be comparable to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Whether or not transanal total mesorectal excision has changed the pattern of defects in the retrieved mesorectal specimens is yet to be clarified.

PURPOSE:

To determine the pattern of mesorectal defects following transanal total mesorectal excision, compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary end-point was the location of defects in the part of the mesorectum below the peritoneal reflection, as it is this part, which is dissected from below in the transanal total mesorectal excision procedure.

METHODS:

From our transanal total mesorectal excision database that includes all transanal total mesorectal excision procedures performed at our institution since 2013, we have included 29 patients who originally had defects in their retrieved specimens. Another 29 patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with mesorectal defects served as a control group. All specimen photos and pathology reports were reviewed systematically; sites and pattern of defects were defined.

RESULTS:

A higher ratio of the defects in the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision group was located below the peritoneal reflection (P = 0.043). The distribution of defects by anatomical quadrant was not statistically different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

The ratio of defects below the peritoneal reflection was lower in the transanal total mesorectal excision group. Whether this is due to a lower incidence of defect in transanal total mesorectal excision is not part of our study.

The application of transanal total mesorectal excision for patients with middle and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), has rapidly become a research hotspot in the field of rectal cancer surgery study. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for the patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched from the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of science. All relevant studies were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TaTME for patients with rectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 859 patients were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME), meta-analysis showed that the rate of complete tumor resection increased and the risk of positive circumferential margins decreased in the TaTME group. For complete tumor resection and positive circumferential margins in the TaTME group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.93 and 1.09 to 3.42 (P = .02) and 0.43 and 0.22 to 0.82 (P = .01), respectively. Concerning safety, results showed that the rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups, and differences in the risk of ileus and anastomotic leakage were not statistically significant (OR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.51-1.09, P = .13; OR = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.46-1.78, P = .78; OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.45-1.38, P = .40).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis show that TaTME is associated with a reduced positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and could achieve complete tumor resection and improved the long-term survival in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision vs Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Low and Middle Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a novel and promising technique in the treatment of low and middle rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a single high-volume university hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with low and middle rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent between 2007 and 2017 were recruited.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision had been performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intraoperative, pathological, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared between the transanal and laparoscopic groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 patients were selected from the whole sample of 316 patients with rectal cancer. After propensity score matching analysis, 46 patients for each group were compared. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision was associated with a higher conversion rate to open surgery (19.6% vs 0%, p = 0.002). Transanal total mesorectal excision showed a longer distal resection margin (15 mm vs 25 mm; p < 0.001), and similar results regarding the completeness of mesorectal excision and circumferential resection margin involvement, compared to laparoscopy. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative complications.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective design and the small size of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible technique that results in a high-quality rectal cancer resection specimen and favorable 30-day postoperative outcomes.

Meta-analysis of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted rectal resection (LARR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We conducted a meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.

CONCLUSIONS

LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.

The Future of Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Narrative Review of an International Symposium

Surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment for primary rectal cancer. For mid and low rectal tumors, optimal oncologic surgery requires total mesorectal excision (TME) to ensure the tumor and locoregional lymph nodes are removed. Adequacy of surgery is directly linked to survival outcomes and, in particular, local recurrence. From a technical perspective, the more distal the tumor, the more challenging the surgery and consequently, the risk for oncologically incomplete surgery is higher. TME can be performed by an open, laparoscopic, robotic or transanal approach. There is a lack of consensus on the “gold standard” approach with each of these options offering specific advantages. The International Symposium on the Future of Rectal Cancer Surgery was convened to discuss the current challenges and future pathways of the 4 approaches for TME. This article reviews the findings and discussion from an expert, international panel.

Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients

AIM

To compare the learning curve for trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TATME) with laparoscopic TME started by a perineal approach (LTME).

METHOD

The first 34 consecutive patients who underwent TATME for low rectal cancer were matched with LTME (performed by the same surgeon) for gender, body mass index and chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients undergoing TATME (23 men; 58 ± 14 years) were matched with 34 undergoing LTME (23 men; 59 ± 13 years). Intra-operative complications occurred more frequently during TATME (21%) than LTME (6%), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.07). The complications of TATME included rectal (n = 4), bladder (n = 1) and vaginal (n = 1) injury and bleeding (n = 1). Length of stay and postoperative overall and major morbidities were similar between groups. Early symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 1/34 TATME and 5/34 LTME (15%; P = 0.02) procedures. Asymptomatic AL occurred in four TATME (12%) and four LTME (12%, P = 1). Thus, the overall rate of AL was 5/34 (15%) for TATME vs 9/34 (26%) for LTME (P = 0.4). No significant difference between the two groups was noted with regard to tumour, number of harvested and positive lymph nodes, R1 resection rate or completeness of the mesorectum. Metastatic recurrence was similar between groups (15% vs 18%, P = 0.7), but follow-up was shorter after TATME (13 ± 6 months) than after LTME (25 ± 14 months; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The TATME learning curve seems to be associated with a significant rate of intra-operative complications. Because no significant benefit has been reported to date, more evidence is needed before TATME can be considered as a better approach than laparoscopic TME with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: are they obsolete?

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer offers favorable short-term results without compromising long term oncological outcomes so far, according to the data from major trials. For this reason, it is currently considered as a standard option for rectal cancer surgery. The learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is generally longer compared to colon cancer. Appropriate standardization and training of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is required. Several RCTs suggested the potential negative effect on quality of resected specimen, which can increase local recurrence. The long-term outcomes - especially local recurrence rate - of these RCTs are awaited. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) has a certain effect of reducing local recurrence of rectal cancer even after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Since LPLND is associated with postoperative morbidity, we should carefully select the candidate to maximize the effect of LPLND and minimize the morbidity caused by LPLND. Recent advancements in imaging study such as CT and MRI enable us to find the suitable candidates for LPLND. The morbidity caused by LPLND could be reduced by minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery. We have to improve oncological outcomes and reduce morbidity by the multidisciplinary strategy for rectal cancer including total mesorectal excision, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and LPLND together with laparoscopic surgery.

Defunctioning loop ileostomy with restorative proctocolectomy for rectal cancer: Friend or foe?

OBJECTIVES

Temporary ileostomy is used to decrease morbidity from anastomotic leakages (ALs). However, ileostomies are associated with complications (i.e., stoma-related complications; SRCs), ileus due to stenosis, dehydration, and the need for a second operation. Here we retrospectively evaluated the impact of SRCs on the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

We identified 180 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer at Juntendo University Hospital between January 2006 and December 2014. We divided the patients into groups with and without defunctioning stoma (DS), and we compared the patient age and gender, tumor location, approach (laparotomy/laparoscopy), surgical procedure, distance of the tumor from the margin of the anus, T factor, stage, duration of postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications between these groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the risk factors for postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

The symptomatic leakage rate in the DS group (n = 92) was not significantly different from that of the non-DS group (n = 88; p = 0.29). However, Grade ≥ 4 AL occurred significantly less frequently in the DS group (0%) than in the non-DS group (5.7%; p = 0.02). SRCs occurred in 14 DS-group patients (15.2%). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that both AL (odds ratio [OR] 9.24; confidence interval [CI] 4.91-19.4) and SRC (OR 1.84; CI 1.03-3.54) were independently predictive of short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of a DS is balanced against the risk of leakage and SRCs at rectal resection. Surgeons should focus on not only the consequences of AL, but also SRC risk.

The present status and developments of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery, while maintaining a similar safety level in many clinical trials. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery with respect to the long-term outcomes in colon cancer. Thus, laparoscopic surgery has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In addition, laparoscopic surgery has also achieved favorable outcomes in the treatments of rectal cancer, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of open surgery. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing an excellent educational opportunity. Laparoscopic surgery may be an ideal approach for the treatment of rectal cancer and colon cancer. Recently, two trials showed that, among patients with advanced rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic surgery as compared with open surgery confirmed to meet the criterion for non-inferiority for long-term outcomes. In addition, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have been introduced for laparoscopic surgery in recent years.

Is the laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer superior to open surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term surgical outcomes

Introduction

Over the past years the incidence of colorectal cancers has increased worldwide. Currently it is the most common gastrointestinal malignancy worldwide. The laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard for surgical treatment. However, a recently published meta-analysis showed no difference in short- and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopy for treating rectal cancer.

Aim

To assess current literature on short-term outcomes of rectal cancer treatment using laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach.

Material and methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes of interest were morbidity and short-term complications.

Results

We identified 4,328 potential references. In the end we included 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We did not find any significant differences in terms of morbidity, haemorrhage, ureter injury, anastomotic leakage, mortality, intra-abdominal abscess or postoperative ileus. We found significant differences in the rate of surgical site infections, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement.

Conclusions

This systematic review based on available RCTs confirms that laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is associated with short-term outcomes comparable to the open approach. Moreover, in some aspects it provides better results (e.g. functional postoperative recovery, lower rate of surgical site infections (SSIs)). The quality of evidence is high; therefore in our opinion it is very unlikely that future trials will alter these results, and for this reason the laparoscopic approach can be considered the gold standard for the treatment of the majority of patients.

Phase II Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Transanal Endoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision has become the standard treatment for rectal cancer, and several investigators have shown that a transanal approach is a feasible option.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a prospective, single-arm phase II trial. It was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT02406118.

SETTINGS

Inpatients at a hospital specializing in oncology were selected.

PATIENTS

This prospective study enrolled 49 patients with rectal cancer located 3 to 12 cm from the anal verge who were scheduled to undergo radical surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin. Secondary end points included the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From March 2015 to April 2016, 32 men and 17 women with rectal cancer were enrolled. The mean age was 61.2 years, and mean BMI was 23.3 kg/m. The mean operating time was 158 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 89.3 mL. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. Successful treatment based on total mesorectal excision quality and circumferential resection margin was achieved in 45 patients (91.8%). Fifteen patients (30.6%) had 30-day postoperative complications, including 7 (14.3%) with anastomotic dehiscence, 5 (10.2%) with urinary retention, 2 (4.1%) with abdominal wound complications, and 1 (2.0%) with ileus. There was no postoperative mortality.

LIMITATIONS

This was a noncomparative single-arm trial conducted at a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision showed acceptable results based on perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes. Further investigations are necessary to show the benefits and long-term outcomes of this procedure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A563.

Preoperative evaluation of skeletal muscle mass in the risk assessment for the short-term outcome of elderly colorectal cancer patients undergoing colectomy

The prevalence of colorectal cancer in the elderly population is increasing; therefore, surgical interventions with a risk of potential complications are more frequently performed. The aim of the present study was to elucidate whether sarcopenia has a clinical impact on short-term outcomes, such as morbidity and hospital stay after surgery, in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. A total of 82 elderly patients undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer between January 2011 and December 2015 in our institute were included in the study, and skeletal muscle mass was measured as total psoas area at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) using enhanced computed tomography scans. The patients were divided into two subgroups, namely those with and those without sarcopenia, based on median skeletal muscle mass in men and women, and the association with complications was analyzed. A total of 40 patients (48.8%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia. The patients with sarcopenia exhibited a significantly higher incidence of total complications (55 vs. 31.0%, P=0.028) and longer hospital stay (25.9±21.2 vs. 18.2±8.5 days, P=0.039). The multivariate logistic analysis revealed that sarcopenia was an independent risk factor for postoperative surgical complications. The short-term outcomes, such as postoperative surgical complications and hospital stay, were affected by preoperative sarcopenia in elderly colorectal cancer patients. To improve the short-term outcomes of such patients, it is necessary to carefully plan the surgical procedure, perioperative care and the surgical strategy using preoperative sarcopenia assessment.

Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: From top to bottom

The gold standard for curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer involves radical resection with a total mesorectal excision (TME). TME is the most effective treatment strategy to reduce local recurrence and improve survival outcomes regardless of the surgical platform used. However, there are associated morbidities, functional consequences, and quality of life (QoL) issues associated with TME; these risks must be considered during the modern-day multidisciplinary treatment for rectal cancer. This has led to the development of new surgical techniques to improve patient, oncologic, and QoL outcomes. In this work, we review the evolution of TME to the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) through more traditional minimally invasive platforms. The review the development, safety and feasibility, proposed benefits and risks of the procedure, implementation and education models, and future direction for research and implementation of the TaTME in colorectal surgery. While satisfactory short-term results have been reported, the procedure is in its infancy, and long term outcomes and definitive results from controlled trials are pending. As evidence for safety and feasibility accumulates, structured training programs to standardize teaching, training, and safe expansion will aid the safe spread of the TaTME.

Single-Docking Full Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose. Robotic surgery has gradually gained importance in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, recent studies have not shown any advantages when compared with laparoscopy. The objective of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience in robotic rectal surgery focusing on short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods. Sixty consecutive robotic rectal resections for adenocarcinoma, over a 4-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Oncological outcomes and surgical resection quality as well as overall and disease-free survival were also assessed. Results. Thirty patients out of 60 (50%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Anterior rectal resection was performed in 52 cases (86.7%), and abdominoperineal resection was done in 8 cases (13.3%). Mean operative time was 283 (±68.6) minutes. The conversion rate was 5% (3 patients). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (16.7%), and reoperation was required in 1 case (1.7%). Mean hospital stay was 9 days, while 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1 patients). The histopathological analysis reported a negative circumferential radial margin and distal margins in 100% of cases with a complete or near complete total mesorectal excision in 98.3% of patients. Mean follow-up was 32.8 months with a recurrence rate of 3.4% (2 patients). Overall survival and disease-free survival were 94% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be safe and feasible when performed by highly skilled surgeons. It offers acceptable perioperative outcomes with a conversion rate notably lower than with the laparoscopic approach. Adequate pathological results and long-term oncological outcomes were also obtained.

Safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic low anterior resection for upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-port surgery for rectal cancer is challenging and controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S-LAR) to multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for upper rectal cancer.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2015, a total of 93 patients who underwent S-LAR (n = 44) or M-LAR (n = 49) without protective diverting ileostomy for upper rectal cancer were identified. Tumors were located between the inferior margin of the second sacral vertebra and the peritoneal reflection. Short-term outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

S-LAR was successful in 75% of cases: 25% of cases required one additional port. Operative factors, perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. In patients with stage I-III disease, the 3-year relapse-free survival rate was significantly higher in the S-LAR group than in the M-LAR group (p = 0.032). The 3-year overall survival rate was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

S-LAR is safe, feasible and can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with upper rectal cancer.

Prognostic significance of survivin in rectal cancer patients treated with surgery and postoperative concurrent chemo-radiation therapy

Background & Aims

This study is designed to investigate the expression of survivin and p53 in human rectal cancer tissues and analyze associations between expression and clinical outcomes in terms of disease recurrence and survival duration.

Results

During follow-up (median 119.0, range 6.6 to 161.3 months), tumor recurrence was detected in 50 patients (43.1%), and local recurrence developed as a first failure site in 13 patients (11.2%). Positive immunostaining of nuclear and cytoplasmic survivin was observed in about one quarter of patients, and about half of all patients had positive staining for p53. Both survivin and p53 were significant prognostic factors of disease-free survival in the univariate analyses, but only survivin remained a significant prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study with 116 locally advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) followed by postoperative concurrent chemo-radiation therapy (CCRT). Immunohistochemical staining was conducted using antibodies for survivin or p53, and their expression was analyzed using an individual score that combined the percentage of positive cells and staining intensity.

Conclusions

Overexpression of nuclear and cytoplasmic survivin in locally advanced rectal cancer patients was associated with a higher recurrence rate in rectal cancer patients treated with TME followed by postoperative CCRT.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evaluation of the learning curve

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) provides an excellent view of the resection margins for rectal cancer from below, but is challenging due to few anatomical landmarks. During implementation of this technique, patient safety and optimal outcomes need to be ensured. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of TaTME in patients with rectal cancer in order to optimize future training programs.

METHODS

All consecutive patients after TaTME for rectal cancer between February 2012 and January 2017 were included in a single-center database. Influence of surgical experience on major postoperative complications, leakage rate and operating time was evaluated using cumulative sum charts and the splitting model. Correction for potential case-mix differences was performed.

RESULTS

Over a period of 60 months, a total of 138 patients were included in this study. Adjusted for case-mix, improvement in postoperative outcomes was clearly seen after the first 40 patients, showing a decrease in major postoperative complications from 47.5 to 17.5% and leakage rate from 27.5 to 5%. Mean operating time (42 min) and conversion rate (from 10% to zero) was lower after transition to a two-team approach, but neither endpoint decreased with experience. Readmission and reoperation rates were not influenced by surgical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve of TaTME affected major (surgical) postoperative complications for the first 40 patients. A two-team approach decreased operative time and conversion rate. When implementing this new technique, a thorough teaching and supervisory program is recommended to shorten the learning curve and improve the clinical outcomes of the first patients.

Feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision in cases with challenging patient and tumor characteristics

Purpose

To assess the feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision in difficult cases including obese patients or patients with bulky tumors or threatened mesorectal fascias.

Methods

We performed laparoscopy-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma located 3–12 cm from the anal verge as part of a prospective, single arm, pilot trial. The primary endpoint was resection quality and circumferential resection margin involvement. Secondary endpoints included the number of harvested lymph nodes and 30-day postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 12 patients (9 men and 3 women) were enrolled: one obese patient, 7 with large tumors and 8 with threatened mesorectal fascias (4 patients had multiple indications). Tumors were located a median of 5.5 cm from the anal verge, and all patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Median operating time was 191 minutes, and there were no intraoperative complications. One patient needed conversion to open surgery for ureterocystostomy after en bloc resection. Complete or near-complete excision and negative circumferential resection margins were achieved in all cases. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15.5. There was no postoperative mortality and 3 cases of postoperative morbidity (1 postoperative ileus, 1 wound problem near the stoma site, and 1 anastomotic dehiscence).

Conclusion

This pilot study showed that transanal total mesorectal excision is also feasible in difficult laparoscopic cases such as in obese patients or those with bulky tumors or tumors threatening the mesorectal fascia. Additional larger studies are needed.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

Recent updates in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer

Because of recent advances in medical technology and new findings of clinical trials, treatment options for colorectal cancer are evolutionally changing, even in the last few years. Therefore, we need to update the treatment options and strategies so that patients can receive optimal and tailored treatment. The present review aimed to elucidate the recent global trends and update the surgical treatment strategies in colorectal cancer by citing the literature published in the last 2 years, namely 2016 and 2017. Although laparoscopic surgery is still considered the most common approach for the treatment of colorectal cancer, new surgical technologies such as transanal total mesorectal excision, robotic surgery, and laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection are emerging. However, with the recent evidence, superiority of the laparoscopic approach to the open approach for rectal cancer seems to be controversial. Surgeons should notice the risk of adverse outcomes associated with unfounded and uncontrolled use of these novel techniques. Many promising results are accumulating in preoperative and postoperative treatment including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and targeted therapy. Development of new biomarkers seems to be essential for further improvement in the treatment outcomes of colorectal cancer patients.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse: a case report

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer with rectal prolapse is rare, described by only a few case reports. Recently, laparoscopic surgery has become standard procedure for either rectal cancer or rectal prolapse. However, the use of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse has not been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old Japanese woman suffered from rectal prolapse, with a mass and rectal bleeding for 2 years. An examination revealed complete rectal prolapse and the presence of a soft tumor, 7 cm in diameter; the distance from the anal verge to the tumor was 5 cm. Colonoscopy demonstrated a large villous tumor in the lower rectum, which was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy. We performed laparoscopic low anterior resection using the prolapsing technique without rectopexy. The distal surgical margin was more than 1.5 cm from the tumor. There were no major perioperative complications. Twelve months after surgery, our patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence of either the rectal prolapse or the cancer, and she has not suffered from either fecal incontinence or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection without rectopexy can be an appropriate surgical procedure for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse. The prolapsing technique is useful in selected patients.

[Laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer resection: oncologically equal?]

The oncological equivalence of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection was evaluated in four multicenter randomized controlled trials. The COLOR II and the COREAN trials demonstrated oncological equivalence; however, the ACOSOG and the ALaCaRT studies came to a different conclusion. In the latter two studies a composite endpoint that assessed the quality of the mesorectal specimen, the completeness of tumor-free circumferential and distal resection margins was chosen. In both trials a higher success rate for open surgery was shown; nevertheless, the validity of this composite endpoint has not been proven and no conclusions on solid oncological endpoints can be drawn. The COLOR II and the COREAN trial therefore remain the only available studies which investigated solid oncological endpoints, such as local recurrence and disease-free survival over an adequate follow-up time period of 3 years; however, the comparability of the study groups at least of the COLOR II trial needs to be called into question as only the experience of the laparoscopic surgeons was assessed. With a local recurrence rate of 5 % in both groups the oncological quality seems nevertheless to be good; therefore, a systematically inadequate control group should not be assumed. At this point it can be concluded that a good oncological outcome can be achieved with laparoscopic rectal resection in the hands of experts. For a final assessment the long-term results of the on-going trials needs to be awaited. If the promising results for laparoscopic surgery of the COLOR II trial are confirmed laparoscopic rectal resection should be preferred to open resection in the future. This conclusion is based on the generally known perioperative benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases (RESECT), a pilot study

•

Traditionally, synchronous colorectal cancer and CRLM are resected separately.

•

Many institutions have begun performing these procedures simultaneously.

•

Minimal data support simultaneous resection including major liver resection.

•

Complications will be investigated following simultaneous resection.

•

This protocol will be implemented in 5 high-volume tertiary care centres worldwide.

Introduction

The “traditional approach” to resect synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastases (CRLM) is to perform staged resections. Many institutions perform simultaneous resection. Disadvantages to the simultaneous approach include longer operating room times, which may increase major postoperative complication rates. Data supporting simultaneous resection are limited to retrospective studies that are subject to selection bias. Therefore, we have proposed a single-arm prospective cohort pilot study to evaluate the postoperative complications following simultaneous resection of synchronous CRLM.

Methods and analysis

This single-arm study will be performed in five high-volume hepatobiliary centres to prospectively evaluate the following objectives: (1) To determine the 90-day postoperative complication rate of patients diagnosed with synchronous CRLM undergoing a simultaneous colorectal and liver resection, including major liver resections; (2) To determine the postoperative mortality rate at 90 days following index surgery; (3) To determine change in global health-related Quality of Life (QoL) following simultaneous resection at three months compared to baseline; and (4) To build a costing model for simultaneous resection, We will also evaluate the feasibility of performing combined resection in these patients by evaluating the number of eligible patients enrolled in the study and determining the reasons eligible patients were not enrolled. This protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02954913).

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been provincially approved by the central research ethics board. Study results will inform the design a randomized controlled trial by providing information about the comprehensive complication index in this patient population used to calculate the sample size for the trial.

Reduced-port robotic total mesorectal resection for rectal cancer using a single-port access: a technical note

Introduction

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has some advantages, including improved cosmetic outcomes and minimized parietal trauma. However, pure single-port laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is challenging because of the difficulties in creating triangulation and applying the laparoscopic staplers with sufficient distal margins in the narrow pelvic cavity. Recently, a reduced-port robotic operation with a robotic single-port access plus one wristed robotic arm for colon cancer was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Aim

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has some advantages, including improved cosmetic outcomes and minimized parietal trauma. However, the pure single-port laparoscopic rectal cancer operation is challenging. Recently, a reduced-port robotic operation with a robotic single-port access plus one wristed robotic arm for colon cancer was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Material and methods

We performed a single-port plus an additional port robotic operation using a robotic single-port access through the umbilical incision, and the wristed robotic instruments were inserted through an additional robotic port in the right lower quadrant.

Results

The total operative and docking times were 310 min and 25 min, respectively. The total number of lymph nodes harvested was 12, and the proximal and distal resection margins were 11.1 and 2 cm, respectively. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 12 uneventfully.

Conclusions

Based on a representative case, reduced-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the single-port access appears to be feasible and safe. This approach could overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer

AIM

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery at our department from January 2009 to December 2013 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The primary end points were 3-year local recurrence and overall and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Secondary end points were intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic group had longer operative time (165.0 versus 140.0, P < .001), less blood loss (20.0 versus 40.0, P < .001), shorter length of incision (5.0 versus 18.0, P < .001), and more lymph node harvested (11.0 versus 9.0, P = .002). However, time to first flatus (P = .941), postoperative hospital stay (P = .095), postoperative complications (P = .155), and 30-day mortality (P = .683) was similar between two groups. With the median follow-up period of 65 months, the 3-year local recurrence rate was 4.3% in laparoscopic group and 7.5% in open group (P = .077); the 3-year overall and DFS rates were similar in two groups (85.9% versus 88.8%, P = .229 and 76.9% versus 79.2%, P = .448, respectively); and the overall and DFS curves were comparable between two groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.858, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.709-1.037, P = .112 and HR = 1.076, 95% CI 0.834-1.389, P = .275, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes for low rectal cancer when compared to open surgery. Furthermore, large-scale, prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the present findings.

Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for pathological T4 colorectal cancer: 10 years of experience in a single center

AIM

To evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for pathological T4 (pT4) colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of proven pT4 colorectal cancer patients who underwent complete resection by laparoscopic or open surgery from 2006 to 2015 at Guangdong General Hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 211 pT4 colorectal cancer patients were included in this analysis, including 101 cases in the laparoscopy (LAP) group and 110 cases in the open surgery (OPEN) group [including 15 (12.9%) cases of conversion to open surgery]. Clinical information (age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, etc.) did not differ between the two groups. In terms of blood loss, postoperative complications and rate of recovery, the LAP group performed significantly more favorably (P < 0.05). With regard to pT4a/b and combined organ resection, there were significantly more cases in the OPEN group (P < 0.05). The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 74.9% and 60.5%, respectively, for the LAP group and 62.4% and 46.5%, respectively, for the OPEN group (P = 0.060). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 68.0% and 57.3%, respectively, for the LAP group and 55.8% and 39.8%, respectively, for the OPEN group (P = 0.053). Multivariate analysis showed that IIIB/IIIC stage, lymph node status, and CA19-9 were significant predictors of overall survival. PT4a/b, IIIC stage, histological subtypes, CA19-9, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent factors affecting disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is safely used in the treatment of pT4 colorectal cancer while offering advantages of minimal invasiveness and faster recovery. Laparoscopy is able to achieve good oncologic outcomes similar to those of open surgery. We recommend that laparoscopy be carried out in experienced centers. It is still required to screen the appropriate cases for laparoscopic surgery, optimize the preoperative diagnosis process, and reduce the conversion rate. Multi-center, prospective, and large-sample studies are required to assess these issues.

Comparison of the guidelines for colorectal cancer in Japan, the USA and Europe

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers globally as well as in Japan and has shown a pattern of increasing incidence and mortality rates. Therefore, guidelines for CRC are considered to be crucial for establishing standard medical treatment not only in Japan but also around the world. In this article, we explain the features of the representative guidelines in Japan (Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum [JSCCR]), the USA (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and Europe (European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO]) and review the differences among these guidelines for CRC. We focus, in particular, on the descriptions of local treatments, including endoscopic treatment for CRC and transanal excision for lower rectal cancer; surgical treatments with lymph node dissection, including management of lower rectal cancer with lateral lymph node metastasis and laparoscopic surgery; and chemotherapy. Although the guidelines share basic principles, some details are different. Consulting the guidelines of various regions from around the world may aid in more precise and effective examination of the details and backgrounds of our own native guidelines.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer

Background:

Three operative techniques have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection: Conventional laparotomy (CL) and the mini-invasive techniques (MITs)– laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) and mini-laparotomy (ML). The aim of the study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the three surgical approaches for Stage I–III CRC resection.

Patients and Methods:

This study enrolled 688 patients with Stage I–III CRC undergoing curative resection. The primary endpoints were perioperative quality and outcomes. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR).

Results:

Patients undergoing LAS had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (P = 0.002) and earlier resumption of normal diet (P = 0.025). Although post-operative complication rates were remarkably higher in patients undergoing CL than in those undergoing MITs (P = 0.002), no difference was observed in the post-operative mortality rate (P = 0.099) or 60-day re-intervention rate (P = 0.062). The quality of operation as assessed by the number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R0 resection did not differ among the groups (all P > 0.05). During a median follow-up of 5.42 years, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups in the rates of 3-year late morbidity, 3-year LR, 5-year LR, 5-year OS or 5-year DFS (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing CL had higher post-operative morbidities. Moreover, the study findings confirm the favourable short-term and comparable long-term outcomes of LAS and ML for curative CRC resection. Therefore, both MITs may be feasible and safe alternatives to CL for Stage I-III CRC resection.

Long-term outcomes after Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus conventional laparoscopy-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a matched case-control study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of total laparoscopic surgery with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction (NOSE) with those for conventional laparoscopy (CL)-assisted surgery for treating rectal cancers.

Methods

We reviewed the prospectively collected records of 844 patients (163 NOSE and 681 CL) who underwent curative surgery for mid- or upper rectal cancers from January 2006 to November 2012. We applied propensity score analyses and compared oncological outcomes for the NOSE and CL groups in a 1:1 matched cohort.

Results

After propensity score matching, each group included 138 patients; the NOSE and CL groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. The median follow-up was 57.7 months (interquartile range, 42.4–82.5 months). The combined 5-year local recurrence rate for all tumor stages was 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%–7.4%) in the NOSE group and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%–6.3%) in the CL group (P = 0.355). The combined 5-year disease-free survival rates for all stages were 89.3% (95% CI, 84.3%–94.3%) in the NOSE group and 87.3% (95% CI, 81.8%–92.9%) in the CL group (P = 0.639). The postoperative mean fecal incontinence scores at 6, 12, and 24 months were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

In our experience, NOSE for mid- and upper rectal cancer had acceptable long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional minimal invasive surgery and seems to be a safe alternative to reduce access trauma.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between open and robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot surgery is a new method that maintains advantages and overcomes disadvantages of conventional methods, even in pancreatic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate safety and benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (robot PD).

METHODS

This study included 237 patients who underwent PD between 2015 and 2017. Demographics and surgical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients underwent robot PD and 186 underwent open PD. Robot PD group had younger age (60.7 vs. 65.4 years, P = 0.006) and lower body mass index (22.7 vs. 24.0, P = 0.007). Robot PD group had lower proportion of patients with firm or hard pancreatic texture (15.7% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.004) and smaller pancreatic duct size (2.3 vs. 3.3 mm, P = 0.002). Two groups had similar operation time (robot vs. open: 335.6 vs. 330.1 min) and complications (15.7% vs. 21.0%), including postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (6.0% vs. 12.0%). Robot PD group had lower postoperative pain score (3.7 vs. 4.1 points, P = 0.008), and shorter postoperative stay (10.6 vs. 15.3 days, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robot PD is comparable to open PD in early outcomes. Robot PD is safe and feasible and enables early recovery; indication for robot PD is expected to expand in the near future.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Colectomy in Younger and Older Patients: An Analysis of Nationwide Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies report safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic colectomy in older patients. The study aimed to examine the impact of laparoscopic colectomy on 30-day readmissions, discharge destination, hospital length of stay, and cost in younger (19-65 years) and older adults (>65 years).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the nationwide readmission database from 2013 to study adults undergoing elective colectomy. The outcomes were 30-day readmissions, discharge destination for the index hospitalization (routine, skilled nursing facility [SNF]/intermediate care facility [ICF], home healthcare), length of stay, and cost. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association of laparoscopic colectomy on outcome; logistic regression for 30-day readmission, multinomial logistic regression for discharge destination, and linear regression for length of stay and cost. An interaction between age and colectomy approach was included, and all models controlled gender, income, insurance status, All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), Elixhauser comorbidities, hospital bed size, ownership, and teaching status.

RESULTS

Of 79,581 colectomies, 40.2% were laparoscopic. Laparoscopic colectomy was more frequent in younger patients (41.9% versus 38.5%, p < .0001). Regardless of age, patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were 20% less likely to be readmitted within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.75-0.85). For postdischarge destination, laparoscopic colectomy offered higher benefits to younger patients (SNF/ICF: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.36-0.49; home health: OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.30-0.35) than older patients (SNF/ICF: OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.47-0.54; home health: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.55-0.62). Regardless of age, laparoscopic colectomy resulted in 1.46 days (p < .0001) shorter hospital stays compared to open colectomy. Laparoscopic colectomy had significantly lower cost compared to open approach, particularly in younger ($1,466) versus older ($632) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy is superior to an open approach, with fewer 30-day readmissions, fewer discharges to SNF/ICF or home health, shorter hospital stays, and less overall cost; younger patients benefit more than older patients.

Is there any role for minimally invasive surgery in NET?

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) represent the variability of almost benign lesions either secreting hormones occurring as a single lesion up to malignant lesions with metastatic potential. Treatment of NET is usually performed by surgical resection. Due to the rarity of NET, surgical treatment is mainly based on the experience and recommendations of experts and less on the basis of prospective randomized studies. In addition, the development and establishment of new surgical procedures is made more difficult by their rarity. The development of laparoscopic-assisted surgery has significantly improved the treatment of many diseases. Due to the well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery, this method has also been increasingly used to treat NET. However, due to limited comparative data, the assumed superiority of laparoscopic surgery in the area NET remains often unclear or not yet proven. This review focuses on the present usage of laparoscopic techniques in the area of NET. Relating to the current literature, this review presents the evidence of various laparoscopic procedures for treatment of adrenal, pancreatic and intestine NET as well as extraadrenal pheochromocytoma and neuroendocrine liver metastases. Further, this review focuses on recent new developments of minimally invasive surgery in the area of NET. Here, robotic-assisted surgery and single-port surgery are promising approaches.

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.

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of this procedure at our institution.

METHODS

From December 2011 to December 2016, patients who underwent robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer were investigated. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 31 patients; 17 men (54.8%) and 14 women (45.2%), with a median age of 65 years (range 40-82 years). Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had a cT4 tumor, 9 patients (29.0%) had a pT4b tumor, and all patients except one (96.8%) underwent complete resection of the primary tumor with negative resection margins. Eleven patients (35.5%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The most commonly resected organ was the vaginal wall (n = 12, 38.7%), followed by the prostate (n = 10, 32.3%). Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 20 patients (64.5%). The median operative time was 394 min (range 189-549 min), and the median blood loss was 41 mL (range 0-502 mL). None of the patients received intraoperative blood transfusions or required conversion to open. Overall, postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (35.5%). The most frequent complication was urinary retention (n = 5, 16.1%), and none of the patients developed serious complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grades III-V.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible.

Assessing the economic advantage of laparoscopic vs. open approaches for colorectal cancer by a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSES

This study investigated the surgical outcomes and potential economic advantage of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer using a propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We examined the surgical and economic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic (N = 127) and open surgery (N = 253) for colorectal cancer and then compared these outcomes in two groups (N = 103 each) using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to open surgery, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly lower overall morbidity rate (14 vs. 40%; P < 0.001) and shorter mean (± standard deviation) postoperative hospital stay (12.6 ± 8.3 vs. 16.8 ± 9.9 days, respectively; P = 0.001). Despite generating higher mean surgical costs (Japanese yen) (985,000 ± 215,000 vs. 812,000 ± 222,000 yen; P < 0.001), utilizing a laparoscopic approach significantly reduced the non-surgical costs (773,000 ± 440,000 vs. 1075,000 ± 508,000 yen; P < 0.001). The mean total cost of laparoscopic-assisted surgery (1758,000 ± 576,000 yen) was decreased by approximately 130,000 yen compared with open surgery (1886,000 ± 619,000 yen), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.125).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is advantageous in reducing morbidity and facilitating an early discharge and does not increase hospital costs. These findings are consistent with the general consensus supporting the benefits of laparoscopic surgery as a minimally invasive approach.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Surgical and Oncological Outcomes in Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant 5-Fluorouracil-Based Chemoradiotherapy

Aims

To evaluate the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the surgical outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC, clinically staged as UICC stage II/III) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

Methods

312 LARC patients undergoing laTME after nCRT were divided into nonobese (BMI < 25.0 kg/m², n = 249) and obese (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m², n = 63) groups. Preoperative radiotherapy was delivered in 45–50.4 Gy/25f, 5 days/week, and concurrent chemotherapy using FOLFOX or CapeOX. Technical feasibility, postoperative and oncological outcome were compared between groups.

Results

Obese patients had significantly longer operative time (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference regarding estimated blood loss, conversion, postoperative recovery, and morbidities. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that higher ASA score and abdominoperineal resection were risk factors for postoperative complications and diverting stoma was a protective factor. The length of resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, and number of lymph node retrieved were comparable. With a median follow-up time of 55 months (ranging 20–102 months), oncological outcome was comparable in terms of overall survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis.

Conclusions

Obesity does not affect surgical or oncological outcome of laTME after nCRT. LaTME may be feasible and safe to obese LARC patients after nCRT in a specialized center.

Induced Bias Due to Crossover Within Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgical Oncology: A Meta-regression Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform clinical practice and have provided the evidence base for introducing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in surgical oncology. Crossover (unplanned intraoperative conversion of MIS to open surgery) may affect clinical outcomes and the effect size generated from RCTs with homogenization of randomized groups.

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to identify modifiable factors associated with crossover and assess the impact of crossover on clinical endpoints.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIS with open surgery for gastrointestinal cancer (1990-2017). Meta-regression analysis was performed to analyze factors associated with crossover and the influence of crossover on endpoints, including 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak rate, and early complications.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs were included, reporting on 11,625 patients from 320 centers. Crossover was shown to affect one in eight patients (mean 12.6%, range 0-45%) and increased with American Society of Anesthesiologists score (β = + 0.895; p = 0.050). Pretrial surgeon volume (β = - 2.344; p = 0.037), composite RCT quality score (β = - 7.594; p = 0.014), and site of tumor (β = - 12.031; p = 0.021, favoring lower over upper gastrointestinal tumors) showed an inverse relationship with crossover. Importantly, multivariate weighted linear regression revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between crossover and 30-day mortality (β = + 0.125; p = 0.033), anastomotic leak rate (β = + 0.550; p = 0.004), and early complications (β = + 1.255; p = 0.001), based on intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Crossover in trials was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak rate, and early complications within the MIS group based on intention-to-treat analysis, although our analysis did not assess causation. Credentialing surgeons by procedural volume and excluding high comorbidity patients from initial trials are important in minimizing crossover and optimizing RCT validity.