Laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 colon cancer: evaluation of margin status

Positive margin rates for colorectal cancer vary significantly by hospital in Michigan: Can we achieve a 0 % positive margin rate?

Background

High quality surgical care for colorectal cancer (CRC) includes obtaining a negative surgical margin. The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) is a statewide consortium of hospitals dedicated to quality improvement; a subset of MSQC hospitals abstract quality of care measures for CRC surgery, including positive margin rate. The purpose of this study was to determine whether positive margin rates vary significantly by hospital, and whether positive margin rates should be a target for quality improvement.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent CRC resection from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcome was the presence of a positive margin. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to test the association of positive margins with patient, hospital, and tumor characteristics.

Results

The cohort consisted of 4211 patients from 42 hospitals (85 % colon cancer and 15 % rectal cancer). The crude positive margin rate was 6.15 % (95 % CI 4.6-7.4 %); this ranged from 0 % to 22 % at individual hospitals. In multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with positive margins included male sex, underweight BMI, metastatic cancer, rectal cancer (vs. colon), T4 T-stage, N1c/N2 N-stage, and open surgical approach. After adjusting for these factors, there remained significant variation by hospital, with 8 hospitals being statistically-significant outliers.

Conclusions

Positive margins rates for CRC vary by hospital in Michigan, even after rigorous adjustment for case-mix. Furthermore, several hospitals achieved near-zero positive margin rates, suggesting opportunities for quality improvement through the identification of best practices among CRC surgery centers.

Randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic results of midline incision versus off-midline incision for specimen extraction in laparoscopic colectomy

PURPOSE

A notable advantage of laparoscopic colorectal surgery is that only a small incision at the extraction site is necessary, which is considered to be cosmetically beneficial. Meanwhile, the optimal extraction site for the resected specimen in laparoscopic colectomy is controversial in terms of cosmetic benefit. This randomized controlled trial compares midline and off-midline extraction sites in laparoscopic colectomy in patients with colon cancer, with consideration of cosmetic benefits as the primary endpoint.

METHODS

Included were patients that underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy at WMUH between October 2014 and February 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to either midline incision group or off-midline incision group. Prospectively collected data included cosmetic results (patients and observer assessment scale) and complications including incidence of incisional hernia, SSI, and pain. This trial was registered with UMIN Clinical Trials (UMIN000028943).

RESULTS

Finally, 98 patients with colorectal cancer were analyzed. No significant differences were found between the two groups in patient and observer assessment scales of cosmetic results (midline 8 ± 1.1 vs off-midline 11 ± 5.9 p = 0.16, midline 13.5 ± 6.6 vs off-midline 15 ± 11 p = 0.58, respectively) or in postoperative pain. However, incisional hernia occurred in four cases in the midline group (8%), which was significantly higher than that in the off-midline group (no cases, 0%).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in terms of cosmetic benefit, the primary endpoint, between the two groups. In this study, only the extraction site location was compared; future studies will examine differences depending on the incisional direction, including the incidence of incisional hernia.

Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for pathological T4 and/or N2 colon cancer patients: Multicenter study using propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery (LAP) vs open surgery (OP) for pathological T4 (pT4) and/or N2 (pN2) colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 255 primary tumor resections for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer performed from 2015 to 2020 at six hospitals, divided into LAP (n = 204) and OP groups (n = 51). After propensity score matching to minimize selection bias, 47 matched patients per group were assessed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the rate of males (53.9% vs. 37.3%, P = .042), left sided colon cancer (53.9% vs 37.3%, P = .042), D3 lymph node dissection (90.7% vs 68.6%, P < .001) and body mass index (kg/m2 ) (22.3 vs 21.8, P = .039) were significantly greater in the LAP group. The rate of pT4b (7.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001) was lower and pN2 was higher (57.4% vs 37.3%, P = .012) in the LAP group. After matching, preoperative characteristics and pathologic status were equivalent between the groups. The LAP and OP groups showed comparable overall survival (OS) (2-year OS, 84.5% vs 76.8%, P = .055) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year RFS, 73.9% vs 52.8%, P = .359). In the patients with pT4, OS (2-year OS, 79.4% vs 75.7%, P = .359) and RFS (2-year RFS, 71.3% vs 58.7%) were comparable. In the patients with pN2, OS (2-year OS, 83.4% vs 76.3%) and RFS (2-year RFS, 69.6% vs 36.2%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer showed comparable mid-term outcomes compared with OP. LAP was an acceptable surgical approach in this cohort.

Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy for T4 colon cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies

Background

To evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) vs. open colectomy (OC) in patients with T4 colon cancer.

Methods

Three authors independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles before June 3, 2022 to compare the clinical outcomes of T4 colon cancer patients undergoing LC or OC.

Results

This meta-analysis included 7 articles with 1,635 cases. Compared with OC, LC had lesser blood loss, lesser perioperative transfusion, lesser complications, lesser wound infection, and shorter length of hospital stay. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (5y OS), and 5-year disease-free survival (5y DFS), R0 resection rate, positive resection margin, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and recurrence. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) results suggested that the potential advantages of LC on perioperative transfusion and the comparable oncological outcomes in terms of 5y OS, 5y DFS, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and R0 resection rate was reliable and no need of further study.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in T4 colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. TSA results suggested that future studies were not required to evaluate the 5y OS, 5y DFS, R0 resection rate, positive resection margin status, lymph nodes harvested ≥12 and perioperative transfusion differences between LC and OC.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022297792.

Exploration of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery for clinical T4 colorectal cancer compared with open surgery: A matched-pair analysis

The indications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for T4 colorectal cancer are controversial because the advantages of MIS are unclear. Therefore, we compared overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoint, and short-term outcome, alteration in perioperative laboratory data, and the interval of postoperative chemotherapy from operation as secondary endpoints, between MIS and open surgery (OPEN) using a matched-pair analysis. We explored the advantages of MIS for T4 colorectal cancer. In this retrospective single-institution study, we included 125 patients with clinical T4 colorectal cancer who underwent curative-intent surgery of the primary tumor between October 2010 and September 2019. Conversion cases were excluded. MIS patients were matched to OPEN patients (ratio of 1:2) according to tumor location, clinical T stage, and preoperative treatment. We identified 25 and 50 patients who underwent OPEN and MIS, respectively, including 31 with distant metastasis. Both groups had similar background characteristics. The rate of major morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) was comparable between the 2 groups (P = .597), and there was no mortality in either group. MIS tended to result in shorter postoperative hospitalization than OPEN (P = .073). Perioperative alterations in laboratory data revealed that MIS suppressed surgical invasiveness better compared to OPEN. Postoperative chemotherapy, especially for patients with distant metastasis who underwent primary tumor resection, tended to be started earlier in the MIS group than in the OPEN group (P = .075). OS and RFS were comparable between the 2 groups (P = .996 and .870, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, MIS was not a significant prognostic factor for poor OS and RFS. MIS was surgically safe and showed similar oncological outcomes to OPEN-with the potential of reduced invasiveness and enhanced recovery from surgery. Therefore, patients undergoing MIS might receive subsequent postoperative treatments earlier.

miR-2682-3p antagonizes its host lncRNA-MIR137HG by interacting with the same target FUS to regulate the progression of gastric cancer

Background

The mechanism of long non-coding RNA MIR137HG in human gastric cancer (GC) is currently unknown. In the present study, we aimed to explore the function and mechanism of MIR137HG in gastric cancer.

Methods

The expression of lncRNA-MIR137HG in 69 gastric cancer samples and their paired surgical margin (SM) tissue samples were tested by QRT-PCR. UCSC was used to find the gene location relationship among MIR137HG and its embedded miRNAs. TargetScan was used to predict the targets of miR-2682-3p. Starbase was used to predict the candidate proteins that interacted with MIR137HG. Western blot, co-focus, and RIP assay were used to verify the direct interaction between MIR137HG and FUS (fused in sarcoma/translocated in liposarcoma, FUS/TLS), while dual-luciferase reporter assay was used to confirm the interaction between miR-2682-3p and FUS. Cell migration assays, colony formation, and xenografts assay were used to investigate the function of MIR137HG and miR-2682-3p to tumor growth and metastasis. Western blot assay was used to explore the downstream candidate protein of FUS.

Results

Data showed that MIR137HG expressed significantly higher in GC than in SM. MIR137HG promoted colony formation and migration in vitro and promoted tumor formation and metastasis in vivo. MIR137HG is distributed in both the nucleus and cytoplasm. It was co-located with FUS and could directly interact with FUS, which might interact with other proteins, such as MET(MET-proto-oncogene, receptor tyrosine kinase), RHOC(ras homolog family member), and CTNNB1(catenin beta1). These proteins may involve different signaling pathways to regulate gastric cancer progression. By contrast, the embedded miR-2682-3p could antagonize the series functions of its host lncRNA-MIR137HG by targeting FUS.

Conclusions

lncRNA-MIR137HG promoted growth and metastasis in gastric cancer by interacting with FUS, while miR-2682-3p could inhibit the function of MIR137HG via the same target FUS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09740-9.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE).

RESULTS

Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Fluorescence ureteral navigation during laparoscopic surgery for clinically suspected stage T4 colorectal cancer: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15% of patients with colorectal cancer present with locally advanced tumors (T4 stage). Laparoscopic surgery for stage T4 disease has not yet been established. The near-infrared ray catheter fluorescent ureteral catheter (NIRFUC) is a new device that uses near-infrared fluorescence resin. We examined the utility of fluorescence ureteral navigation (FUN) with the NIRFUC during laparoscopic surgery for stage T4 colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with stage T4 colorectal cancer (n = 143, from January 2017 to March 2021) were divided into a T4FUN + group, in which the NIRFUC was used (n = 21), and a T4FUN- group, in which the NIRFUC was not used (n = 122). Short-term outcomes were compared between the groups. Next, the laparoscopic surgery rate and incidence of ureteral injury from January 2017 to March 2021 were compared between the T4FUN- group and the non-stage T4FUN- group (n = 434, from January 2017 to March 2021), in which fluorescence ureter navigation was not used.

RESULTS

Rectal cancer, stage T4b disease, and invasion into the urinary tract were observed more often in the T4FUN + group than in the T4FUN- group. In the comparisons of the T4FUN + versus T4FUN- groups, the operative time was 398 (161-1090) vs. 256 (93-839) minutes, the blood loss was 10 (1-710) vs. 25 (0-1360) ml, and the ratio of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery was 21:0 vs. 79:43. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) were present in 2 (10%; 0 ureteral injury) patients in the T4FUN + group and 13 (11%; 2 ureteral injury) patients in the T4FUN- group. In the T4FUN + group, the operative time was longer (p < 0.0001), but the laparoscopic ratio was higher (p = 0.0002), and the blood loss volume and incidence of ureteral injury tended to be lower. In the comparisons of the T4FUN- versus non-stage T4FUN- groups, the ratio of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery was 79:43 vs. 384:50, the incidence of open conversion was 8 (6.6%) vs. 15 (3.5%), and the incidence of ureteral injury was 2 (1.6%) vs. 0 (0%). In the T4FUN- group, the open surgery rate (<0.0001), open conversion rate (p = 0.0205) and incidence of ureteral injury (p = 0.0478) were high, with a significant difference observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with stage T4 disease have an increased risk of ureteral injury and are more likely to be converted to open surgery. FUN can help to safely increase the laparoscopic surgery rate while safely visualizing the ureter. FUN is recommended for laparoscopic surgery in patients with stage T4 colorectal cancer.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Examination of fluorescence navigation for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery; Research Ethics Committee of the Kawaguchi Municipal Medical Center (Saitama, Japan) approval number: 2020-3. https://kawaguchi-mmc.org/wp-content/uploads/clinical research-r02.pdf.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND

The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC.

METHODS

A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION(S)

Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches Are Safe and Appropriate in N2 Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

There is emerging evidence of the oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in T4 colorectal cancer; however, such support is lacking in N2 disease.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare oncological and perioperative outcomes of surgical resection for N2 colorectal cancer using an open versus minimally invasive approach.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program's generic and targeted colectomy data sets.

SETTINGS

Data about surgery for N2 colorectal cancer were obtained regarding North American hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing elective surgical resection for N2 colorectal cancer in participating hospitals between 2014 and 2018 were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical resection of N2 colorectal cancer was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome was nodal yield. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1837 patients underwent open and 3907 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery colectomies for N2 colorectal cancer (n = 5744). Median nodal yield was 20 (interquartile range, 15-27) in the open group and 21 (interquartile range, 16-28) in the minimally invasive group (p < 0.0001); however, nodal harvest between the 2 groups was not significantly different on multivariate analysis. Perioperative complications were higher on univariate analysis in the open surgery group, with respect to key outcomes including anastomotic leak and death (p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its retrospective design and by the fact that the staging data collected by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program are pathological rather than clinical; however, prior studies found a 97% concordance between pathological and clinical N2 determination.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery approaches to colorectal cancer with N2 disease result in equivalent nodal harvests compared with open approaches. Our group supports the use of a minimally invasive approach in advanced nodal stage colorectal cancer in the appropriately selected patient. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B417.

LOS ABORDAJES QUIRRGICOS MNIMAMENTE INVASIVOS SON SEGUROS Y APROPIADOS EN EL CNCER COLORRECTAL N

ANTECEDENTES:Existe evidencia emergente de la seguridad oncológica de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en el cáncer colorrectal T4; sin embargo, semenjante apoyo falta en la enfermedad N2.OBJETIVO:comparar los resultados oncológicos y perioperatorios de la resección quirúrgica para el cáncer colorrectal N2 utilizando un abordaje abierto versus mínimamente invasivo.DISEÑO:Realizamos un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando los conjuntos de datos de colectomía genéricos y específicos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica.AJUSTE:Hospitales de Norte America que participan en el Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a resección quirúrgica electiva por cáncer colorrectal N2 en los hospitales participantes entre 2014 y 2018.INTERVENCIONES:Resección quirúrgica de cáncer colorrectal N2.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VOLORACION:Nuestro resultado principal fue el rendimiento nodal. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones perioperatorias y mortalidad.RESULTADOS:1837 pacientes fueron sometidos a cirugía abierta y 3907 pacientes fueron sometidos a colectomías de cirugía mínimamente invasiva por cáncer colorrectal N2 (n = 5744). La mediana del rendimiento nodal fue 20 (IQR 15-27) en el grupo abierto y 21 (IQR 16-28) en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p <0,0001); sin embargo, el rendimiento nodal entre los dos grupos no fue significativamente diferente en el análisis multivariado. Las complicaciones perioperatorias fueron mayores en el análisis univariado en el grupo de cirugía abierta, con respecto a los resultados clave, incluida la fuga anastomótica y la muerte (p <0,001).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio está limitado por su diseño retrospectivo y por el hecho de que los datos de estadificación recopilados por NSQIP son patológicos más que clínicos; sin embargo, estudios previos encontraron una concordancia del 97% entre la determinación patológica y clínica de N2.CONCLUSIONES:Los enfoques de cirugía mínimamente invasiva para el cáncer colorrectal con enfermedad N2 dan rendimientos nodales equivalentes a abordajes abiertos. Nuestro grupo apoya el uso de abordaje mínimamente invasivo en el cáncer colorrectal avanzado en estadio ganglionar en el paciente adecuadamente seleccionado. Consulte Video Resumenhttp://links.lww.com/DCR/B417.

Improved oncologic outcomes with increase of laparoscopic surgery in modified complete mesocolic excision with D3 lymph node dissection for T3/4a colon cancer: results of 1191 consecutive patients during a 10-year period: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic modified complete mesocolic excision (mCME) with D3 lymph node dissection has been performed with increasing frequency, but the oncological safety remains unclear. This study investigated the oncological safety of laparoscopic modified CME with D3 dissection for pT3/4a M0 colon cancer.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with pT3/4a M0 colon cancer undergoing curative colectomy at a comprehensive cancer center between 2004 and 2013 were included. Outcomes were compared between early (2004-2008, n = 450) and late (2009-2014, n = 741) periods. Prognostic factors were investigated by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1191 patients were eligible. Median follow-up was 57 months. Laparoscopic surgeries were more common in the late period (early vs late: 53.6% vs. 91.8%, p < 0.01). Patients in the late period showed lower blood loss (20 mL vs. 10 mL, p < 0.01), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (18.1 vs. 21.6, p < 0.01) and fewer patients with < 12 harvested nodes (13.6% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01). Postoperative complication rates were similar between periods (2.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.97). Five-year relapse-free survival rate (RFS) (75.3% vs. 82.7%, p < 0.01) and overall survival rate (OS) (86.9% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.01) were higher in the late period. Multivariate analysis revealed laparoscopic surgery as an independent favorable prognostic factor for both RFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.99, p = 0.03) and OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.83, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Improved oncologic outcomes and more frequent laparoscopic surgery during the 10-year period of the study were demonstrated for modified CME with D3 dissection, suggesting the safety of this procedure performed by experienced surgeons for pT3/4a M0 colon cancer.

Laparoscopic approach for T4 colon cancer can be associated with poor prognosis in right-sided T4b tumours

INTRODUCTION

Although recent studies have demonstrated the safety of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer, some patients could have poor prognosis. In this study, we aimed to analyse the risk factors affecting oncologic outcome of laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among the 1033 T4 colon cancer patients collected from a multicentre database (2004-2017), 584 patients (458 T4a and 126 T4b) underwent laparoscopic approach for radical surgery. Risk factors associated with 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated through multivariate analysis. In addition, subgroups were classified using a combination of risk factors, and the survival rate was evaluated.

RESULTS

During this period, 188 (32.2%) had recurrence, and 151 (25.9%) died. In the multivariate analysis for oncologic outcome, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen level (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37) and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.60) were associated with poor DFS. T4b (HR 1.56, 1.46), right-sided location (HR 1.52, 1.42), and open conversion (HR 2.70, 2.12) were independently associated with both poor DFS and OS. When four subgroups were analysed through the combination of tumour location and T stage, the DFS and OS rates were significantly lower in patients with right-sided T4b cancer than in other groups (log-rank p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Right-sided T4b colon cancer for laparoscopic surgery may lead to poor oncologic outcome. This approach could be a caution in suspected cases preoperatively.

Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Colectomy for T4b Colon Cancer at a University Hospital in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

The choice of optimal treatment strategies for T4b colon cancers has still been discussed, particularly the initiation of neoadjuvant therapy or surgery. We conducted this study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for T4b colon cancers.

METHODS

We used the retrospective design to include all 43 patients with T4b colon cancer at a university hospital in Vietnam from March 2017 to March 2019. All patients were followed 30 days after the surgery, and information about the day of the first flatus, length of hospital stay, iatrogenic complications, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and adjuvant chemotherapy was collected.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 187 minutes (ranging from 80 to 310), the mean blood loss was 64.3 ml (5-200), and the conversion rate was 2.3%. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 15.5 (SD = 8.06), and 33 patients (76.7%) had at least 12 lymph nodes harvested. A total of 21 patients (48.8%) had lymph node metastases with a mean number of lymph node metastases of 1.89 (SD = 3.4). The radial resection margin was R0 in all 43 patients (100%). The median time until the first flatus and hospital stay were 3 days (2-5) and 7.1 (6-11) days, respectively. There was no mortality at 30 days postoperatively, and one patient had iatrogenic complication (2.3%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical colectomy was feasible and safe for patients with T4b colon cancer except those requiring major and complicated reconstruction.

Oncological outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for pathological T4 colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSES

Whether laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is safe and effective for patients with locally advanced T4 colon cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with pathological (p) T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 151 consecutive patients with pT4M0 colon cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2010 and 2017 using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 100 patients (n = 50 in each group). Median follow-up was 43.5 months. The conversion rate to laparotomy in this study was 5.5% for the entire patient cohort and 6.0% for the matched cohort. Compared to the OC group, the LC group showed reductions in estimated blood loss and length of postsurgical stay. Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II and all-grade complication rates were significantly lower in the LC group than in the OC group. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with LC. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of overall, cancer-specific, recurrence-free survival, or incidence of local recurrence among the entire patient cohort and matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes were similar between the LC and OC groups. LC offers a safe, feasible option for patients with pT4 colon cancer.

The Short- and Long-Term Feasibility of Laparoscopic Surgery in Colon Cancer Patients with Bulky Tumors

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery for colon cancer, randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic approaches have equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. However, the feasibility of laparoscopy for removal of bulky tumors has not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to determine the short- and long-term feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for bulky (> 8 cm) colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients with bulky tumors (defined as greater than 8 cm in diameter) underwent curative resection from July 2004 to July 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 48) and open (n = 32) resection.

RESULTS

Compared to open, the operative time was significantly longer (213 vs. 148 min, p < 0.001), return of bowel function quicker (time to oral intake; 2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and length of stay shorter (10 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Five-year cancer-specific and relapse-free survival was similar with no patients developing local recurrence in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of colon cancers greater than 8 cm in diameter is feasible and oncologically safe with better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared to open surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery facilitates administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced colon cancer: propensity score analyses

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a laparoscopic approach on long-term oncological outcomes in curative intent surgery for pT4 colon cancer, in both overall and stratified subgroups with distinct clinical entities.

Patients and methods

Patients with a pT4N0-2M0 colon cancer from four centers between 2000 and 2014 were included. Laparoscopic and open approaches were compared according to the intention-to-treat principle. Propensity scores were used to adjust for baseline differences between the groups in three manners: i) as a linear predictor in a Cox regression model, ii) to create a 1:1 matched cohort, and iii) to stratify patients into four groups with an increasing chance of receiving laparoscopy.

Results

In total, 424 patients were included. After 1:1 matching, a laparoscopic approach correlated with higher rates of radical resection, lower morbidity, and a higher percentage of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. This translated into better 5-year disease-free survival (52% vs 40%, HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50–0.96) and 5-year overall survival (68% vs 57%, HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43–0.99). These results were confirmed in the other two propensity score analyses. In the multivariable models, adjuvant chemotherapy remained independently associated with better survival, whereas surgical approach lost significance.

Conclusions

In locally advanced colon cancer, an intentional laparoscopic approach in experienced hands seems to decrease morbidity and to increase the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with improved survival.

Clinical Outcome of Single-port Surgery in Patients With Pathologic T4 Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS), compared with those of multiport surgery (MPS) in patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 188 patients with proven pathologic T4 colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery from January 2008 to December 2014 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into the SPS group (n=94) and the MPS group (n=94). The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The median operative time was significantly shorter in the SPS group than in the MPS group (P=0.045). Postoperative complications did not differ between the groups. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPS group than in the MPS group (P<0.001). Oncological resection rates were similar between groups. The 3-year relapse-free survival rates, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival rates, and the 5-year overall survival rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS is safe and feasible in patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in pT4 colon cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has achieved improved short-term benefits and better long-term oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. However, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic surgery is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Published studies from 2003 to 2018 comparing oncological outcomes following laparoscopic and open surgery for pT4 colon cancer were systematically searched. Data on conversion rate, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity and mortality, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were subjected to meta-analysis using fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 2396 cases (1250 laparoscopic and 1146 open). There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.007; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.935-1.085; P = 0.850], number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 0.004; 95% CI = -0.139 to 0.148; P = 0.951), mortality (RR = 0.509; 95% CI = 0.176-1.470; P = 0.212), and 3-year OS (RR = 1.056; 95% CI = 0.939-1.188; P = 0.360), 5-year OS (RR = 1.003; 95% CI = 0.883-1.139; P = 0.966), 3-year DFS (RR = 1.032; 95% CI = 0.903-1.179; P = 0.642), and 5-year DFS (RR = 0.995; 95% CI = 0.868-1.140; P = 0.973) between the groups. The rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures was 10.7% (95% CI = 0.090-0.124). There was a significant difference in incidence of complications within 30 postoperative days between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR = 0.703; 95% CI = 0.564-0.876; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in pT4 colon cancer, oncological outcomes are similar, and more importantly, there are fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II/III colon cancer: Results of propensity score analyses

BACKGROUND

Non-inferiority of the laparoscopic approach for stage II/III colon cancer has not been clearly established. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open D3 surgery.

METHODS

Subjects were 1230 consecutive patients with stage II/III colon cancer, who were referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital from 2004 to 2013. Open surgery was performed in 821 (67%) patients, and laparoscopic surgery was performed in 409 (33%). Propensity score analyses with overall survival as the primary endpoint were performed in three different propensity score methods.

RESULTS

Regression adjustment using the propensity score as a linear predictor in the model showed similar overall survival between laparoscopic and open surgeries [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98 (95% CI [0.64-1.46]; p = 0.916)]. Stratification analysis of the entire cohort revealed that, among five strata, only the highest stratum (clinical T2/T3, clinical N0/N1, tumor size <6 cm, and body mass index (BMI) < 28) had an HR of <1 (0.37). In the other four strata, open surgery was favored as reflected by HRs of >1 (1.13-1.26). The propensity score-matched cohort (365 matched pairs), from which patients with advanced disease and high BMI were excluded, yielded an HR of 0.93 (95% CI [0.57-1.52]; p = 0.772).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery appeared to be a safe and reasonable option for patients with stage II/III colon cancer in general. Patients with high BMI, clinical N2 and T4 disease, and tumor size ≥6 cm might require prudent selection of surgical approach.

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy as an Oncologically safe alternative for patients with stage T4 Colon Cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study

Background

It is still controversial whether laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

Methods

Data of eligible patients with colon cancer in our institution from March 2004 to September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were followed up to September 2016. Propensity score matching was performed to control the bias.

Results

Two hundred and forty two patients were selected by propensity score matching, with 121 patients in the LAC group and 121 in the OC group. Mean operating time and rate of intraoperative blood transfusion were similar between two groups. In LAC group, shorter time to first flatus and first liquid intake were observed in patients with pT4b stage disease, but not for patients with pT4a stage disease. Less blood loss and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay were examined in LAC group, including pT4a and pT4b stages. Conversion was required in 9.1% (11 out of 121) cases. DFS and OS were similar between LAC and OC groups. The 5-year DFS rate was 64.2% for pT4a stage and 35.5% for pT4b stage in LAC group, and 62.9% and 33.7% in OC group for pT4a (p = 0.374) and pT4b (p = 0.385) stage respectively. For 5-year OS rates, two groups did not differ in pT4a stage (LAC 69.2% vs. OC 66.0%, p = 0.151) and pT4b stage (LAC 37.5% vs. OC 38.1%, p = 0.510).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colectomy appears to be safe for selected patients with pT4 colon cancer in centres with expertise in minimally invasive surgery.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic surgery's value in pathological T4 colon cancer with comparison to open surgery: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

In spite of the unique advantages of minimally invasive treatment, laparoscopic surgery is not recommended in T4 colon cancer patients with the concern of technical feasibility and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. We used the database of our center to reevaluate laparoscopic surgery's value in T4 colon cancer and compared with open surgery in both short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and propensity score-matched study of pathological T4 colon cancer patients who received laparoscopic surgery or open surgery from March 2011 to August 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 411 pathological T4 colon cancer patients were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 86 patients in laparoscopic group and 86 patients in open group. Our study showed longer operation time, less blood loss and less length of postsurgical stay compared with open surgeries (167 ± 56 min vs. 111 ± 50.1 min, P < 0.001; 72 ± 61.5 mL vs. 113 ± 113.9 mL, P = 0.004; 7.3 ± 2.1 days vs. 7.9 ± 2.1 days, P = 0.046, respectively). 7 (8.2%) patients underwent conversions to open surgery. 5-years of DFS and OS showed no statistic difference between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.4%, 77.5% and 73.2% for laparoscopic surgery and 95.2%, 82.7% and 73.9% for open surgery (P = 0.618). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.5%, 77.2% and 61.7% for laparoscopic surgery and 91.7%, 75.3% and 66.8% for open surgery (P = 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that there is no statistic difference in short- and long-oncologic outcomes in our center and it is a reliable evidence to support the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer patients. Still, considering the lack of randomized controlled trails, conducting large prospective multi-center population-based studies is not only required, but also pressing.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced T4 colon cancer: the long-term outcomes and prognostic factors

Purpose

For locally advanced pathological T4 (pT4) colon cancer, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic procedures remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to assess short-term and long-term outcomes and to identify the prognostic factors in laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

Methods

The study group included 130 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection for pT4 colon and rectosigmoid cancer from January 2004 through December 2012. The short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and prognostic factors in pT4 colon cancer were analyzed.

Results

The median operative time was 205 min, with a median blood loss of 10 ml. The conversion rate was 3.8%, and 13 patients (10.0%) had postoperative complications. The radial resection margin was positive in 1 patient (0.8%). The median follow-up time was 73 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 77.2 and 63.5%, respectively. On a multivariate analysis, a male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 3.09, p < 0.001], lymph node ratio ≥ 0.06 (HR 2.35, p = 0.021), tumor diameter < 38 mm (HR 2.57, p = 0.007), and right-sided colon cancer (HR 2.11, p = 0.047) were significantly related to a poor OS.

Conclusions

These results suggest that laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer is safe and feasible, and the oncological outcomes are acceptable. Based on the present findings, select patients with locally advanced colon cancer should not be excluded from laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate short- and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer, and to compare these with open surgery.

METHODS

Using systematic review of literature, studies reporting on radicality of resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer were identified, with or without a control group of open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios were calculated using an inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Thirteen observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2017 were included, together consisting of 1217 patients that received laparoscopic surgery and 1357 with an open procedure. The proportion of multivisceral resections was larger in the open group in five studies. Based on 11 studies, the pooled proportion of R0 resection was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Analysing (mainly) T4a subgroups in 6 evaluable studies revealed pooled R0 resection rates of 0.94 in both groups. No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and open surgery for any survival measure: RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96-1.20) for 3-year DFS, RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.15) for 5-year DFS, RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for 3-year OS, and RR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.12) for 5-year OS.

CONCLUSION

Literature on laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer is restricted to non-randomized comparisons with substantial allocation bias. Laparoscopic surgery for T4a tumours might be safe, whereas for T4b colon cancer requiring multivisceral resection it should be applied with caution.

Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic colon cancer resection for T4 lesions: a case-control analysis of 7-years' experience

BACKGROUND

According to many Societies' guidelines, patients presenting with clinical T4 colorectal cancer should conventionally be approached by a laparotomy. Results of emerging series are questioning this attitude.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the oncologic outcomes of 147 patients operated on between June 2008 and September 2015 for histologically proven pT4 colon cancers. All patients were treated with curative intent, either by a laparoscopic or open "en bloc" resection.

RESULTS

Median operative time, blood loss and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative surgical complication rate and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.09 and p = 0.99, respectively). R1 resection rate and lymph nodes harvest, as well, did not remarkably differ when comparing the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, conversion rate was 19%. Long-term outcomes were not affected in patients who had undergone conversion. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (44.6% and 40.3% vs. 39.4% and 38.9%). Locally advanced stages (IIIB-IIIC) and R1 resections were detected as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach might be safe and acceptable for locally advanced colon cancer and does not jeopardize the oncologic results. Conversion to open surgery should be a part of a strategy as it does not seem to adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. We consider laparoscopy, in expert hands, the last diagnostic tool and the first therapeutic approach for well-selected locally advanced colon cancers. Larger prospective studies are needed to widely assess this issue.

Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in pathologic T4 colon cancers compared to those of open surgery

INTRODUCTION

Despite the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer management, laparoscopy is not regarded as a standard treatment for T4 colon cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

From March 2003 to June 2013, a total of 109 consecutive patients with proven pathologic T4 colon cancer were enrolled. These patients were divided into the laparoscopy group (LG, n = 52) and the open group (OG, n = 57). Perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the LG, open conversion occurred in four patients (7.6%). Combined resection was less commonly performed in the LG (13.5%) than in the OG (36.8%, P = 0.005). Operation time was similar between the two groups. In the LG, blood loss (129 mL vs. 437 mL, P < 0.001) and overall complication rate (13.5 vs. 36.8%, P = 0.005) were lower and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 7 vs. 17 days, P < 0.001) than in the OG. The 5-year overall survival rate was 60.7% for the LG and 61.9% for the OG (P = 0.817). Local recurrence-free survival did not differ between the groups (88.9% in LG vs. 88.1% in OG, P = 0.725).

CONCLUSION

Considering the benefits of early recovery and similar oncologic outcomes, laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer could be a viable option in selected patients.

Laparoscopic surgery should be considered in T4 colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy in T4 colon cancers is not widely advocated due to concerns regarding safety and oncologic efficacy. We conducted this study to compare the short- and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open approaches in T4 colon cancers.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent surgery for T4 colon cancer from 2008 to 2014 was performed. Margin positive rate, lymph node yield, local or distant recurrence and overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients received open surgery, whilst 93 underwent laparoscopic surgery, with a conversion rate of 8.6%. There was no difference in the various measured outcomes between the laparoscopic and open groups. The relative risks of positive margins and inadequate lymph node yield for staging were 0.95 (0.74-1.23, p = 0.692) and 1.01 (0.97-1.05, p = 0.710), respectively, for the laparoscopic group when compared to the open approach. Regarding long-term outcomes, the relative risk of local recurrence in the laparoscopic group was 0.99 (0.96-1.02, p = 0.477), whilst there were also no increased risks of developing distal recurrences at the liver (RR 1.19, 0.51-2.82, p = 0.684), lungs (RR 1.20, 0.50-2.87, p = 0.678) and peritoneum (RR 1.22, 0.51-2.95, p = 0.653) in the laparoscopic group. There was also no difference in the overall survival (RR 0.70, 0.42-1.16, p = 0.168). Patients were followed up for a median of 73.3 months (range 34.8-144.7).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery does not compromise oncological outcomes in T4 colon cancers compared to the open approach. Because of its proven associated benefits, laparoscopy should be considered in selected T4 colon cancers.

Survival outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although benefits of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery have been suggested, the long-term survival of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer requiring Japanese D3 dissection remains unclear. We did a randomised controlled trial to establish non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery.

METHODS

We did an open-label, multi-institutional, randomised, two-arm phase 3 trial in 30 hospitals in Japan. Patients aged 20-75 years who had histologically proven colon cancer; tumours located in the caecum or ascending, sigmoid, or rectosigmoid colon; T3 or deeper lesions without involvement of other organs, node stages N0-2, and metastasis stage M0; and tumour size of 8 cm or smaller were included. Only accredited surgeons did surgery as an operator or instructor. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) preoperatively to undergo D3 resection either by an open route or a laparoscopic route, via phone call or fax to the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Data Center. Randomisation used a minimisation method with a biased-coin assignment according to tumour location (caecum, ascending vs sigmoid, rectosigmoid) and institution. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) was set at 1·366. This study is registered with UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number C000000105, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00147134.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 1, 2004, and March 27, 2009, 1057 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=528) or laparoscopic surgery (n=529). 5-year overall survival was 90·4% (95% CI 87·5-92·6) for open surgery and 91·8% (89·1-93·8) for laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic D3 surgery was not non-inferior to open surgery for overall survival (HR 1·06, 90% CI 0·79-1·41; p_{non-inferiority}=0·073). 65 (13%) patients in the open surgery group and 53 (10%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group had grade 2-4 adverse events. Grade 2-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (15 [3%] in the open surgery group vs 14 [3%] in the laparoscopic surgery group), paralytic ileus (six [1%] vs nine [2%]), and small intestine bowel obstruction (16 [3%] vs 11 [2%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the open surgery group: one patient died 7 days after surgery (probably due to myocardial infarction), and one patient died from febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, diarrhoea, and gastrointestinal haemorrhage during postoperative chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic D3 surgery was not non-inferior to open D3 surgery in terms of overall survival for patients with stage II or III colon cancer. However, because overall survival in both groups was similar and better than expected, laparoscopic D3 surgery could be an acceptable treatment option for patients with stage II or III colon cancer.

FUNDING

National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research, and Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant for Clinical Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Oncologic Outcomes Following Laparoscopic versus Open Resection of pT4 Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic resection, and clinical trials addressing the oncologic safety are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for locally advanced colon cancers.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened the literature for controlled trials or observational studies comparing curative-intent laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Studies were included if it was possible to determine outcomes for the T4 colon cancers separately, either reported in the article or calculated with individual patient data.

INTERVENTIONS

Included studies were systematically reviewed and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were done by using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, resection margins, and lymph node harvest.

RESULTS

Of 2878 identified studies, 5 observational studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 1268 patients (675 laparoscopic, 593 open). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.72), disease-free survival (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61), or positive surgical margins (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.32) between the groups. The open group had a larger lymph node retrieval (pooled mean difference, 2.26 nodes; 95% CI, 0.58-3.93). The pooled rate of conversion from laparoscopy to an open procedure was 18.6% (95% CI, 9.3%-27.9%).

LIMITATIONS

These results are limited by the inherent selection bias in the included nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, minimally invasive resection of selected locally advanced colon cancer is oncologically safe. There is a small increase in lymph node harvest with open resections, but it is unclear whether this is clinically significant. Surgeons should be prepared for a significant rate of conversion to laparotomy as required to perform en bloc resection.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for advanced-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the operative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LAR) versus open anterior rectal resection (OAR) for patients with pT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a multicenter propensity score matching (PSM) study of patients undergoing elective curative-intent LAR or OAR for pT4 rectal cancer (TNM stage II/III/IV) between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients were included in the analysis. After PSM, demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics were similar between the 52 LAR and the 52 OAR patients. Overall, 52 tumors were located in the high rectum, 25 in the mid-rectum and 27 in the low rectum. Multivisceral resection was performed in 26.9% of LAR and 30.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.829). Conversion was required in 11 LAR patients (21.2%). The LAR group showed significantly shorter time to flatus (3.13 vs. 4.97 days, p = 0.001), time to regular diet (3.59 vs. 6.36 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (15.49 vs. 17.96 days, p = 0.002) compared to the OAR group. The 90-day morbidity and mortality were not different between groups. In the majority of patients (85.6%), R0 resection was achieved. A complete mesorectal excision was obtained in 82.7% of LAR and 78.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.855). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were, respectively, 95.6, 73.8 and 66.7% for the LAR group and 86.7, 66.9 and 64.1% for the OAR group (p = 0.219). The presence of synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 2.26), R1 resection (HR 2.71) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.24) were significant predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that LAR for pT4 rectal cancer can achieve good pathologic and oncologic outcomes similar to open surgery despite the risk of conversion. Moreover, laparoscopy offers the benefits of a faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) versus open colectomy (OC) in a bicentric cohort of patients with T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective PSM analysis of consecutive patients undergoing elective LC or OC for pT4 colon cancer (TNM stage II/III) between 2005 and 2014.

RESULTS

Overall, 237 patients were selected. After PSM, 106 LC-and 106 OC-matched patients were compared. LC was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OC (220 vs. 190 min, p < 0.0001; 116 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.002, respectively). LC patients showed a faster recovery, which translated into a shorter hospital stay compared to OC (10.5 vs. 15.3 days, p < 0.0001). Conversion was required in 13 (12.2 %) LC patients. No group difference was observed for 30- and 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in the majority of LC and OC patients (93.9 %). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 99, 76.8, and 58.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 98, 70.1, and 59.9 %, respectively, for the OC group (p = 0.864). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival was 86.3, 66, 57.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 79.1, 55.1, and 50.2 % for the OC group (p = 0.261).

CONCLUSION

With an acceptable conversion rate, laparoscopy can achieve complete oncologic resections of T4 colon cancer similar to open surgery and can be considered a safe and feasible alternative approach that confers the advantage of a faster recovery.

Laparoscopic resection for T4 colon cancer: perioperative and long-term outcomes

Laparoscopic resection has been considered a contraindication for T4 colorectal cancer. It is argued that it is a challenging and demanding procedure with high conversion rate, inadequate oncologic clearance and surgical outcomes. There are only a few data on short- and long-term operative results. This review aimed at assessing feasibility and operative and oncologic results of laparoscopic resection for T4 colorectal cancer.