10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

Applying interpretable machine learning algorithms to predict risk factors for permanent stoma in patients after TME

Objective

The purpose of this study was to develop a machine learning model to identify preoperative and intraoperative high-risk factors and to predict the occurrence of permanent stoma in patients after total mesorectal excision (TME).

Methods

A total of 1,163 patients with rectal cancer were included in the study, including 142 patients with permanent stoma. We collected 24 characteristic variables, including patient demographic characteristics, basic medical history, preoperative examination characteristics, type of surgery, and intraoperative information. Four machine learning algorithms including extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM) and k-nearest neighbor algorithm (KNN) were applied to construct the model and evaluate the model using k-fold cross validation method, ROC curve, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA) and external validation.

Results

The XGBoost algorithm showed the best performance among the four prediction models. The ROC curve results showed that XGBoost had a high predictive accuracy with an AUC value of 0.987 in the training set and 0.963 in the validation set. The k-fold cross-validation method was used for internal validation, and the XGBoost model was stable. The calibration curves showed high predictive power of the XGBoost model. DCA curves showed higher benefit rates for patients who received interventional treatment under the XGBoost model. The AUC value for the external validation set was 0.89, indicating that the XGBoost prediction model has good extrapolation.

Conclusion

The prediction model for permanent stoma in patients with rectal cancer derived from the XGBoost machine learning algorithm in this study has high prediction accuracy and clinical utility.

The Multidisciplinary Approach of Rectal Cancer: The Experience of "COMRE Group" Model

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard to treat locally advanced rectal cancer. This monocentric retrospective study evaluates the results of laparotomic, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in “COMRE GROUP” (REctalCOMmittee). Methods: 327 selected stage I-II-III patients (pts) underwent TME between November 2005 and April 2020 for low or middle rectal cancer; 91 pts underwent open, 200 laparoscopic and 36 robotic TME. Of these, we analyzed the anthropomorphic, intraoperative, anatomopathological parameters and outcome during the follow up. Results: The length of hospital stay was significantly different between robotic TME and the other two groups (8.47 ± 3.54 days robotic vs. 11.93 ± 5.71 laparotomic, p < 0.001; 8.47 ± 3.54 robotic vs. 11.10 ± 7.99 laparoscopic, p < 0.05). The mean number of harvested nodes was higher in the laparotomic group compared to the other two groups (19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 8 laparoscopic, p < 0.001; 19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 7 robotic, p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 52 months (range: 1−169). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the open TME group compared with the laparoscopic one (Chi2 = 13.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the experience of the “COMRE” group, laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a better choice than laparotomy in a multidisciplinary context. Robotic TME has a significant difference in terms of hospital stay compared to the other two groups.

Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies

AIM

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in surgical research, and case-matched studies, such as studies with propensity score matching, are expected to serve as an alternative to RCT. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery for rectal cancer, but it remains unclear whether there are any differences in the findings obtained using these study designs. We aimed to examine similarities and differences between findings from different study designs regarding laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. RCT, case-matched studies, and cohort studies comparing laparoscopic low anterior resection and open low anterior resection for rectal cancer were included. In total, 8 short-term outcomes and 3 long-term outcomes were assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted stratified by study design using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in this review. Findings did not differ between RCT and case-matched studies for most outcomes. However, the estimated treatment effect was largest in cohort studies, intermediate in case-matched studies, and smallest in RCT for overall postoperative complications and 3-year local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Findings from case-matched studies were similar to those from RCT in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, findings from case-matched studies were sometimes intermediate between those of RCT and unadjusted cohort studies, and case-matched studies and cohort studies have a potential to overestimate the treatment effect compared with RCT.

Rivaroxaban for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Design of the PRO-LAPS II STUDY

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of extending prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) beyond hospital discharge after laparoscopic surgery for cancer is undefined. Extended prophylaxis with rivaroxaban is effective in reducing post-operative VTE after major orthopedic surgery without safety concern.

METHODS

PROLAPS II is an investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of extended antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban compared with placebo after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in patients who had received antithrombotic prophylaxis with low molecular-weight heparin for 7 ± 2 days (NCT03055026). Patients are randomized to receive rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 3 weeks (up to day 28 ± 2 from surgery). The primary study outcome is a composite of symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE, asymptomatic ultrasonography-detected DVT or VTE-related death at 28 ± 2 days from laparoscopic surgery. The primary safety outcome is major bleeding defined according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE, asymptomatic ultrasonography-detected DVT, major bleeding or death by day 28 ± 2 and by day 90 from surgery are secondary outcomes. Assuming an 8% event rate with placebo and 60% reduction in the primary study outcome with rivaroxaban, 323 patients per group are necessary to show a statistically significant difference between the study groups.

DISCUSSION

The PROLAPS II is the first study with an oral anti-Xa agent in cancer surgery. The study has the potential to improve clinical practice by answering the question on the clinical benefit of extending prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Data source

To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = –143.13, 95% CI: –183.48 to –102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = –0.97, 95% CI: –1.35 to –0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = –2.40, 95% CI: –3.10 to –1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.

Excellence and safety in surgery require excellent and safe tutoring

The surgical education in Italy has always been a very important issue. The aim of this article is to bring together the feedback of the definitions of the various components of the learning scheme and to evaluate the importance of the legal point.

In March 2016 we performed a literature review. We have also examinated the internet pages of the Italian Department of Education, Health and Medical Order.

In Italy the tutor had an unclear role from a legal point of view. He is the person who must be able to perform a specific procedure with expert technical and who must know how to stop the student if this is about to perform a dangerous maneuver. In Italy the ability to work for the trainee is limited in all reality, it depends on several factors including the increase of numbers of medical-legal disputes, the timing, the commitment it requires mentoring and a lack of mentors.

Conclusion: In surgery, the problem is greater because of the increasingly of medico-legal implications that we are after surgical procedure. It would be necessary to define a role of the tutor in a regular protocol and a proper assessment of his performance.

Use of a simplified consent form to facilitate patient understanding of informed consent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Surgical informed consent forms can be complicated for patients to read and understand. We created a consent form with key information presented in bulleted texts and diagrams combined in a graphical format to facilitate the understanding of information during the verbal consent discussion.

Methods

This prospective, randomized study involved 70 adult patients awaiting cholecystectomy for gallstones. Consent was obtained after standard verbal explanation using either a graphically formatted (study group, n=33) or a standard text document (control group, n=37). Comprehension was evaluated with a 9-item multiple-choice questionnaire administered before surgery and factors affecting comprehension were analyzed.

Results

Comparison of questionnaire scores showed no effect of age, sex, time between consent and surgery, or document format on understanding of informed consent. Educational level was the only predictor of comprehension.

Conclusions

Simplified surgical consent documents meet the goals of health literacy and informed consent. Educational level appears to be a strong predictor of understanding.

The learning curve of laparoscopic holecystectomy in general surgery resident training: old age of the patient may be a risk factor?

A well-designed learning curve is essential for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills: but, are there risk factors that can derail the surgical method? From a review of the current literature on the learning curve in laparoscopic surgery, we identified learning curve components in video laparoscopic cholecystectomy; we suggest a learning curve model that can be applied to assess the progress of general surgical residents as they learn and master the stages of video laparoscopic cholecystectomy regardless of type of patient.

Electronic databases were interrogated to better define the terms “surgeon”, “specialized surgeon”, and “specialist surgeon”; we surveyed the literature on surgical residency programs outside Italy to identify learning curve components, influential factors, the importance of tutoring, and the role of reference centers in residency education in surgery. From the definition of acceptable error, self-efficacy, and error classification, we devised a learning curve model that may be applied to training surgical residents in video laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Based on the criteria culled from the literature, the three surgeon categories (general, specialized, and specialist) are distinguished by years of experience, case volume, and error rate; the patients were distinguished for years and characteristics. The training model was constructed as a series of key learning steps in video laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Potential errors were identified and the difficulty of each step was graded using operation-specific characteristics. On completion of each procedure, error checklist scores on procedure-specific performance are tallied to track the learning curve and obtain performance indices of measurement that chart the trainee’s progress.

Conclusions. The concept of the learning curve in general surgery is disputed. The use of learning steps may enable the resident surgical trainee to acquire video laparoscopic cholecystectomy skills proportional to the instructor’s ability, the trainee’s own skills, and the safety of the surgical environment. There were no patient characteristics that can derail the methods. With this training scheme, resident trainees may be provided the opportunity to develop their intrinsic capabilities without the loss of basic technical skills.

Self-gripping mesh versus fibrin glue fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized prospective clinical trial in young and elderly patients

Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair is a safe and effective technique. In this study we tested the hypothesis that self-gripping mesh used with the laparoscopic approach is comparable to polypropylene mesh in terms of perioperative complications, against a lower overall cost of the procedure. We carried out a prospective randomized trial comparing a group of 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with self-gripping mesh versus a group of 30 patients who received polypropylene mesh with fibrin glue fixation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to intraoperative variables, early or late intraoperative complications, chronic pain or recurrence. Self-gripping mesh in transabdominal hernia repair was found to be a valid alternative to polypropylene mesh in terms of complications, recurrence and postoperative pain. The cost analysis and comparability of outcomes support the preferential use of self-gripping mesh.

Learning curve for endorectal ultrasound in young and elderly: lights and shades

Aim of the study is to highlight difficulties faced by an inexperienced surgeon in approaching endorectal-ultrasound, trying to define when learning curve can be considered complete. A prospective analysis was conducted on endorectal-ultrasound performed for subperitoneal rectal adenocarcinoma staging in the period from January 2008 to July 2013, reported by a single surgeon of Department of Oncology, Section of General Surgery, "San Luigi Gonzaga" Teaching Hospital, Orbassano (Turin, Italy); the surgeon had no previous experience in endorectal-ultrasound. Fourty-six endorectal-ultrasounds were divided into two groups: early group (composed by 23 endorectal-ultrasounds, made from January 2008 to May 2009) and late group (composed by 23 endorectal-ultrasound, carried out from June 2009 to July 2013). In our experience, the importance of a learning curve is evident for T staging, but no statystical significance is reached for results deal with N stage. We can conclude that ultrasound evaluation of anorectal and perirectal tissues is technically challenging and requires a long learning curve. Our learning curve can not be closed down, at least for N parameter.