Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Transanal total mesorectal excision: the Slagelse experience 2013-2019

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) 5 years from implementation at a large-volume colorectal unit, including local recurrence, distant metastasis, and survival.

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a relatively new procedure for mid- and low-rectal cancer, with well-documented safety and feasibility. However, data on long-term results are limited.

METHODS

This study was based on a prospective data collection via a maintained database in a large colorectal unit. The database included patients who underwent TaTME from December 2013 through July 2019. We have updated the database through a review of patient charts, including radiology and pathology reports. Data collection included operative details, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, pathologic results, and oncologic results.

RESULTS

During the study period, two hundred patients underwent TaTME in the study period (men = 147). The mean BMI was 26.7%, and the mean tumor height from the anal verge was 7.86 cm. Neoadjuvant treatment was given to 22% of patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 9.3% of patients, and the overall rate of postoperative complications was 24.5%. The TME specimen was incomplete in 11% of patients, and the CRM was positive in 5.5% of patients. Local recurrence (LR) occurred in seven patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years (4.7%). Distant metastasis (DM) occurred in 12% of patients. The overall survival was 90% and disease-free survival was 81%. The operating time was reduced in the later period of our experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that TaTME is feasible, safe, and had acceptable short-term outcomes and an acceptable rate of LR. The study included, however, one group that was non-randomized, and the follow-up was not long enough for most patients. Studies with longer follow-up data are awaited.

Reconsideration of the Safety of Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Cancer

The oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were evaluated in recent multicenter randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The MRC-CLASSIC, COLOR II, and COREAN trials found no differences in local recurrence or diseasefree survival rate between laparoscopic and open surgery. However, the noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery with respect to open surgery for rectal cancer was not established on statistical analysis in the ACOSOG Z6051 and the ALaCaRT trials. Quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is one of the most important prognostic factors. Incomplete TME had unfavorable oncologic outcomes compared to complete TME. Although TME quality can be clearly identified on pathologic evaluation, there is controversy regarding the acceptable range of oncologically safe TME for laparoscopic surgery. It is not certain whether near-complete TME has an unfavorable oncologic impact and whether laparoscopic surgery with near-complete TME is an oncological threat. Therefore, the surgical community will be interested in the long-term outcomes and meta-analyses of ongoing large-scale RCTs. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been steadily improving its safety for oncology surgery, which has been reported consistently in various multicenter RCTs. To improve surgical quality, colorectal surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical technique, including laparoscopic surgery.

Preservation of Pathologic Outcomes in Robotic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: Can the Robot Fill the Minimally Invasive Gap?

Open resection remains the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal cancer with recent studies unable to prove noninferiority of laparoscopic resection. Few studies directly compare robotic versus open techniques. This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic or open rectal cancer resection during a three-year period. The primary endpoint was a composite of complete mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin <1 mm, and distal resection margin <1 mm. The study cohort included 64 patients undergoing robotic (n = 28) or open (n = 36) resection. Successful surgical resection was similar between the robotic (75%) and open (76%) approaches. Robotic resection was associated with significantly lower blood loss ( P = 0.02) and significantly longer operative times ( P = 0.009) compared with open resection. Length of hospital stay and complications were similar between groups. Both male gender ( P = 0.03) and shorter tumor distance from the anal verge ( P = 0.01) were predictors for unsuccessful surgical resection in open, but not robotic, surgery. Pathologic outcomes are similar between robotic and open rectal cancer resection, even early in the learning curve. Tumor distance from the anal verge complicates open total mesorectal excision; however, robotic surgery is less impacted. Robotic resection may be a promising minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection.

Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534).

CONCLUSIONS

By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.

Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite proven safety and efficacy, rates of laparoscopy for rectal cancer in the US are low. With reports of inferiority with laparoscopy compared to open surgery, and movements to develop accredited centers, investigating utilization and predictors of laparoscopy are warranted. Our goal was to evaluate current utilization and identify factors impacting use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Premier™ Hospital Database was reviewed for elective inpatient rectal cancer resections (1/1/2010-6/30/2015). Patients were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes, and then stratified into open or laparoscopic approaches by ICD-9-CM procedure codes or billing charge. Logistic multivariable regression identified variables predictive of laparoscopy. The Cochran-Armitage test assessed trend analysis. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization and factors independently associated with use of laparoscopy.

RESULTS

3336 patients were included-43.8% laparoscopic (n = 1464) and 56.2% open (n = 1872). Use of laparoscopy increased from 37.6 to 55.3% during the study period (p < 0.0001). General surgeons performed the majority of all resections, but colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach rectal cancer laparoscopically (41.31 vs. 36.65%, OR 1.082, 95% CI [0.92, 1.27], p < 0.3363). Higher volume surgeons were more likely to use laparoscopy than low-volume surgeons (OR 3.72, 95% CI [2.64, 5.25], p < 0.0001). Younger patients (OR 1.49, 95% CI [1.03, 2.17], p = 0.036) with minor (OR 2.13, 95% CI [1.45, 3.12], p < 0.0001) or moderate illness severity (OR 1.582, 95% CI [1.08, 2.31], p < 0.0174) were more likely to receive a laparoscopic resection. Teaching hospitals (OR 0.842, 95% CI [0.710, 0.997], p = 0.0463) and hospitals in the Midwest (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89], p = 0.0044) were less likely to use laparoscopy. Insurance status and hospital size did not impact use.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer steadily increased over the years examined. Patient, provider, and regional variables exist, with hospital status, geographic location, and colorectal specialization impacting the likelihood. However, surgeon volume had the greatest influence. These results emphasize training and surgeon-specific outcomes to increase utilization and quality in appropriate cases.

Isolated rectal cancer surgery: a 2007-2014 population study based on a large administrative database

Rectal resection is technically one of the most demanding laparoscopic procedures, requiring additional training and expertise of both surgeons and institutions. The literature has shown that laparoscopic procedures can be appropriate for the treatment of rectal cancer (RC), in terms of safety, outcome and efficiency, but results may not always be directly transferable to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the use of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections in a north-eastern Italian region (the Veneto) and to see how the characteristics of patients and hospitals are associated with the use of laparoscopy. This was a retrospective cohort study based on administrative data collected from 2007 to 2014 in the Veneto region (north-east Italy). In the period considered (2007-2014), 4953 rectal resections were performed for RC in Veneto hospitals, accounting for 35% of the total 14,243 surgical procedures involving the rectum, and resulting in 76,739 days in hospital [mean length of stay-post-operative (MLOS) 15.5 ± 11.1 days]. Patients were a mean 67.9 ± 11.7 years old (68 ± 12.7 for women, 67.9 ± 11 for men), while the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures was on average 2 years younger (66.5 ± 11.8 vs 68.8 ± 11.5; p < 0.05). The four main findings of this study are: (1) the increasing rates of laparoscopic procedures for RC resection at all the hospitals in our geographical area, rising up to 52% in 2014. This is probably related to not only to availability of better equipment but surely to a growing expertise of surgeons; (2) the esteem of proportion of laparoscopically treated RC; (3) the significant difference between the laparoscopic and open surgical approach in terms of mean length of hospital stay after RC resection, making the laparoscopic approach cost-effective generally speaking; and (4) the disparities in hospitals' use of laparoscopy by patients' age group: Laparoscopic surgery is safe also in the elderly population but it is not so widely offers in Veneto Region hospitals, and it's probably due to the lack of experience about this approach in frail/old patients.