Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis

Factors associated with early postoperative feeding: An observational study in a colorectal surgery population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Early post-operative feeding is recommended within enhanced recovery after surgery programmes. This study aimed to describe post-operative feeding patterns and associated factors among patients following colorectal surgery, using a post-hoc analysis of observational data from a previous RCT on chewing gum after surgery.

METHODS

Data from 301 participants (59% male, median age 67 years) were included. Amounts of meals consumed on post-operative days (POD) 1-5 were recorded as: none, a quarter, half, three-quarters, all. 'Early' consumers were those who ate ≥a quarter of a meal on POD1. 'Early' tolerance was the consumption of at least half of three meals on POD1 or 2 without vomiting. Exploration of selected peri-operative factors with early feeding and tolerance were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

222 people (73.8%) consumed solid food early, and 109 people (36.2%) tolerated solid food early. Several factors were associated with postoperative feeding: provision of pre-operative bowel preparation was associated with delayed consumption [odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.83] and tolerance (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.81) of food; and laparoscopic/laparoscopic assisted (vs. open/converted to open surgery) was associated with early tolerance of food (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.17-3.39).

CONCLUSIONS

While three-quarters of the study population ate solid food early, only one-third tolerated solid food early. Findings suggest that bowel preparation and surgery type are factors warranting further investigation in future studies to improve uptake of early post-operative feeding.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: our experience of 39 cases

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced colorectal cancer suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures remains controversial because of its high conversion rate, inadequate oncologic clearance and surgical outcomes. This study retrospectively evaluated the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer and investigated the factors influencing conversion to open surgery.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2015, 39 patients who underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer intraoperatively suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures were included. The conversion rate, resection margin status, surgical results, and morbidity and mortality rates were evaluated. We also investigated the factors influencing conversion.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 28 %. The resection margin was negative in all cases. The median operative time was 247 min, and the median blood loss was 80 ml. The postoperative mortality rate was 0 %, and the morbidity rate was 28 %; complications of Grade 3 or more were observed in 2 patients (5 %). The factors influencing conversion were ≥2 adherent organs (p = 0.028) and clinical suspicion of direct invasion to adjacent organs (cT4b) (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer intraoperatively suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures is feasible in selected patients. Conversion is more likely with ≥2 adherent organs and cT4b.

Meta-analysis of the risk of small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

One of the potential advantages of laparoscopic compared with open colorectal surgery is a reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction events. Early reports support this proposal, but accumulated evidence is lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials and observational studies by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from 1990 to August 2015. The primary outcomes were early and late postoperative bowel obstruction following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Both ileus and bowel obstruction were defined as a postoperative bowel obstruction. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, and a random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the studies.

Results

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials and 88 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis; 106 studies reported early outcome and 12 late outcome. Collectively, these studies reported on the outcomes of 148 392 patients, of whom 58 133 had laparoscopic surgery and 90 259 open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced rates of early (odds ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·72; P < 0·001) and late (odds ratio 0·61, 0·41 to 0·92; P = 0·019) postoperative bowel obstruction. Weighted mean values for early postoperative bowel obstruction were 8 (95 per cent c.i. 6 to 10) and 5 (3 to 7) per cent for open and laparoscopic surgery respectively, and for late bowel obstruction were 4 (2 to 6) and 3 (1 to 5) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

The reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction demonstrates an advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal disease.

Differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To identify differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. We also evaluated short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy and open surgery.

METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive stage IV patients undergoing open (n=61) or laparoscopic (n=39) major resection were analyzed. There were four cases (10%) of conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopy group.

RESULTS

Pathological T4 tumors (56% vs 26%), primary colon cancers (74% vs 51%), and larger tumor diameter (6 vs 5 cm) were more commonly managed with open surgery. Right colectomy was more common in the open surgery group (39%) and low anterior resection was more common in the laparoscopy group (39%, P=0.002). Hepatic metastases in segments II, III, IVb, V, and VI were more frequently resected with laparoscopy (100%) than with open surgery (56%), although the difference was not statistically significant. In colon and rectal cancers, mean operative time and 30-day complication rates of laparoscopy and open surgery did not differ. In both cancers, mean time to soft diet and length of hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Mean time from surgery to chemotherapy commencement was significantly shorter with laparoscopy than with open surgery. In colon and rectal cancers, 2-year cancer-specific and progression-free survival rates were similar between the laparoscopy and open surgery groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, laparoscopy can be selected as an initial approach in patients with a primary tumor without adjacent organ invasion and patients without primary tumor-related symptoms. In selected stage IV patients, tumor factors such as primary rectal tumor, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or liver metastasis may not be absolute contraindications for a laparoscopic approach.