Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer in the US: a skewed population. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2651-2656. [PMID: 31372887 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07041-0]

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Robot-Assisted Surgery and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pelvic Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Surgical innovations for cancer treatment may penetrate differentially across racial and ethnic groups and contribute to disparities in health and health care quality. We summarized the current evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) use in four major pelvic cancer treatments. We identified studies related to racial and ethnic disparities in RAS and/or MIS use in the treatment of prostate, endometrial, bladder, and rectal cancers during 2001 to 2022 from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. Twenty-eight studies were selected (prostate = 7, endometrial = 14, bladder = 1, rectal = 5, multiple cancers = 1) and all were retrospective. Thirteen and 23 studies examined racial and ethnic differences in individual patients' receipt of RAS and MIS, respectively. Black patients were less likely to receive RAS/MIS than White patients in most studies. Hispanic patients were less likely to receive RAS/MIS than White patients in just over half of the studies. Studies of Asian patients were few and reported mixed results. Three studies examined disparities on the center level and found that racial and ethnic minority prostate cancer patients were less likely to be treated at RAS-performing or high-technology facilities. More work is needed to improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying racial and ethnic disparities in RAS and MIS use and their impact on disparities in health outcomes.

Comparison of Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resections of Nonmetastatic Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has not been associated with improvements in oncological outcomes in comparison to open resection. Robotic resections are associated with increased lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection in patients with right-sided tumors. It is unclear whether lymph node yield is higher in robotic resections in other parts of the colon and whether higher lymph node yield is associated with improved survival.

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival rates between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections in a large cohort of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

A single comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent resection of nonmetastatic primary colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify predictors of disease-free and overall survival. Lymph node yield and perioperative outcomes were compared between operative approaches.

RESULTS

There were 2398 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 699 (29%) underwent open, 824 (34%) underwent laparoscopic, and 875 (36%) underwent robotic resection. The median follow-up was 3.8 years (45.4 months). Robotic surgery was associated with higher lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival. Minimally invasive colectomy was associated with fewer complications and shorter length of stay in comparison to open surgery. In a direct comparison between the 2 minimally invasive approaches, robotic colectomy was associated with fewer complications, shorter length of stay, and lower conversion rate than laparoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that the 3 surgical approaches are similarly effective in treating primary resectable colon cancer and that differences in outcomes are observed primarily in the early postoperative period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 .

COMPARACIN DE RESECCIONES ROBTICAS, LAPAROSCPICAS Y ABIERTAS DE CNCER DE COLON NO METASTSICO

ANTECEDENTES:La resección laparoscópica para el cáncer de colon no se ha asociado con mejoras en los resultados oncológicos en comparación con la resección abierta. Las resecciones robóticas se asocian con un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica en pacientes con tumores del lado derecho. No está claro si la cosecha ganglionar es mayor en las resecciones robóticas en otras partes del colon y si un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos se asocia con una mejor supervivencia.OBJETIVO:Comparar las tasas de supervivencia entre resecciones robóticas, laparoscópicas y abiertas en una gran cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de colon no metastásico.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó en un único centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a resección de cáncer de colon primario no metastásico entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizaron modelos univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y global. La cosecha ganglionar y los resultados perioperatorios se compararon entre los abordajes quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Hubo 2398 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión: 699 (29%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 824 (34%) se sometieron a resección laparoscópica y 875 (36%) se sometieron a resección robótica. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 3,8 años (45,4 meses). La cirugía robótica se asoció con una mayor cosecha ganglionar y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica. En el análisis multivariable, el abordaje quirúrgico no se asoció con una diferencia en la supervivencia general o libre de enfermedad. La colectomía mínimamente invasiva se asoció con menos complicaciones y una estancia más corta en comparación con la cirugía abierta. En una comparación directa entre los dos enfoques mínimamente invasivos, la colectomía robótica se asoció con menos complicaciones, una estancia más corta y una tasa de conversión más baja que la laparoscopia.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros datos indican que los tres enfoques quirúrgicos son igualmente efectivos en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon resecable primario y que las diferencias en los resultados se observan principalmente en el período posoperatorio temprano. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Exploring the complexity and spectrum of racial/ethnic disparities in colon cancer management

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality across U.S. racial/ethnic groups. Existing studies often focus on a particular race/ethnicity or single domain within the care continuum. Granular exploration of disparities among different racial/ethnic groups across the entire colon cancer care continuum is needed. We aimed to characterize differences in colon cancer outcomes by race/ethnicity across each stage of the care continuum.

METHODS

We used the 2010-2017 National Cancer Database to examine differences in outcomes by race/ethnicity across six domains: clinical stage at presentation; timing of surgery; access to minimally invasive surgery; post-operative outcomes; utilization of chemotherapy; and cumulative incidence of death. Analysis was via multivariable logistic or median regression, with select demographics, hospital factors, and treatment details as covariates.

RESULTS

326,003 patients (49.6% female, 24.0% non-White, including 12.7% Black, 6.1% Hispanic/Spanish, 1.3% East Asian, 0.9% Southeast Asian, 0.4% South Asian, 0.3% AIAE, and 0.2% NHOPI) met inclusion criteria. Relative to non-Hispanic White patients: Southeast Asian (OR 1.39, p < 0.01), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.11 p < 0.01), and Black (OR 1.09, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of presenting with advanced clinical stage. Southeast Asian (OR 1.37, p < 0.01), East Asian (OR 1.27, p = 0.05), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.05 p = 0.02), and Black (OR 1.05, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of advanced pathologic stage. Black patients had increased odds of experiencing a surgical delay (OR 1.33, p < 0.01); receiving non-robotic surgery (OR 1.12, p < 0.01); having post-surgical complications (OR 1.29, p < 0.01); initiating chemotherapy more than 90 days post-surgery (OR 1.24, p < 0.01); and omitting chemotherapy altogether (OR 1.12, p = 0.05). Black patients had significantly higher cumulative incidence of death at every pathologic stage relative to non-Hispanic White patients when adjusting for non-modifiable patient factors (p < 0.05, all stages), but these differences were no longer statistically significant when also adjusting for modifiable factors such as insurance status and income.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-White patients disproportionately experience advanced stage at presentation. Disparities for Black patients are seen across the entire colon cancer care continuum. Targeted interventions may be appropriate for some groups; however, major system-level transformation is needed to address disparities experienced by Black patients.

Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Care for Black Patients: Barriers and Solutions

Racial disparities in colorectal cancer for Black patients have led to a significant mortality difference when compared to White patients, a gap which has remained to this day. These differences have been linked to poorer quality insurance and socioeconomic status in addition to lower access to high-quality health care resources, which are emblematic of systemic racial inequities. Disparities impact nearly every point along the colorectal cancer care continuum and include barriers to screening, surgical care, oncologic care, and surveillance. These critical faults are the driving forces behind the mortality difference Black patients face. Health care systems should strive to correct these disparities through both cultural competency at the provider level and public policy change at the national level.

Effect of Socio-Economic Status on Perioperative Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Pulmonary Lobectomy

Background: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been correlated with poor survival rates and surgical outcomes following lung cancer resection. This study sought to determine whether this disparity exists perioperatively in lung cancer patients following robotic-assisted video-thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy. 

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 447 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy by one surgeon for known or suspected lung cancer. Ten patients were excluded due to incomplete data. We used median income by residential ZIP code as a surrogate for SES status and grouped patients based on whether ZIP-based median income was less than (Group 1) or greater than (Group 2) 300% of the federal poverty income level. The effects of SES status groups on incidence of postoperative complications, chest tube duration, hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality were evaluated by the logistic regression model and Inverse Gaussian regression model, respectively.

Results: Without adjustment, Group 1 tended to have a higher rate of postoperative complications, with 54% of patients experiencing complications compared to 34% of patients in Group 2 (p=0.007). Median chest tube duration and hospital LOS were also significantly longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p=0.034). In multivariable logistical regression analysis, while controlling for covariates and considering effect modifications, lower SES was significantly and positively associated with postoperative complications (odds ratio (OR)=1.98, p=0.039). Preoperative chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was also a positive and significant predictor of postoperative complications (OR=1.89, p=0.017), chest tube duration (p=0.020), and LOS (p=0.010).

Conclusions: Lower median income is associated with a greater number of postoperative complications following pulmonary resection for lung cancer when controlling for covariates.

Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis

Robotic proctectomy has become increasingly popular for both benign and malignant indications. The purpose of this study was to determine if the robotic approach has a distinct advantage over laparoscopy in obese patients, which has been suggested by previous subgroup analyses. We performed a retrospective review of 2016–2018 National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to compare outcomes between patients who underwent robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy, stratified by Body Mass Index (BMI) subgroups. We also compared outcomes of converted minimally invasive proctectomy to planned open operations. Four thousand four hundred eighteen (69.3%) patients underwent laparoscopic proctectomy, and 1956 (30.7%) patients underwent robotic proctectomy. Robotic proctectomy was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (5.1% vs 12.3%; p = 0.002), and this relationship was maintained on an adjusted model. Obese (BMI > 30) patients were more likely to require conversion in both laparoscopic and robotic groups with the greatest difference in the conversion rate in the obese subgroup. Patients who underwent conversion had higher composite morbidity compared to patients who underwent planned open operations (50.8% vs 41.3%; p < 0.001). And among patients with rectal cancer, robotic proctectomy was associated with a greater incidence of positive radial tumor margins compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (8.0% vs 6.4%; p = 0.039), driven primarily by the obese subgroup. Our study demonstrates that robotic proctectomy is associated with a 7% lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopy and that obese patients are more likely to require conversion than non-obese patients. Among obese patients with rectal cancer, we identified an increased risk of positive radial margins with robotic compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Comparing outcomes for non-metastatic rectal cancer in academic vs. community centers: A propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the impact of hospital academic status on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. We compare these outcomes for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma at academic versus community institutions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent resection. Propensity score matching was performed across facility cohorts to balance confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival, other short and long-term outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression.

RESULTS

After matching, 15,096 patients were included per cohort. Academic centers were associated with significantly decreased odds of conversion and positive margins with significantly increased odds of ≥12 regional nodes examined. Academic programs also had decreased odds of 30 and 90-day mortality and decreased 5-year mortality hazard. After matching for facility volume, no significant differences in outcomes between centers was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference between academic and community centers in outcomes following surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer was seen after matching for facility procedural volume.

Population demographics in geographic proximity to hospitals with robotic platforms do not correlate with disparities in access to robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Disparities in access to robotic surgery have been shown on the local, regional, and national level. This study aims to see if the location of hospitals with robotic platforms (HWR) correlates with population trends to explain the disparity in access to robotic surgery.

METHODS

Hospitals with da Vinci surgical systems were identified by compiling data from the publicly available da Vinci surgeon locator website. Demographic, and economic data were compiled. Multivariate logistic regression and place-based analysis were used to determine population characteristics associated with geographic proximity to HWR.

RESULTS

The United States has 1971 HWR (5.93 hospitals with robots per 1 million people). The states with the most HWR are Texas (203), California (175), and Florida (162). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of Texas counties determined population (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-3.38) education level (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-3.21), and urban designation (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.31) remained significantly associated with HWR. When applied to a national level, population remained associated with higher numbers of HWR (R = 0.945), however level of education and urbanization were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study of population-level data, disparities in access to robotic surgery seen in prior literature cannot be explained exclusively by sociodemographic factors related to the geographic proximity of HWR. This suggests other biases are involved in the lack of robotic procedures performed among minority and underprivileged populations.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

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