Feasibility of Selective Lateral Node Dissection Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Rectal Cancer After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available studies that compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection compared to laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in advanced rectal cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LPLND.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Perioperative parameters were extracted and pooled for analysis. This meta-analysis provided an analysis of heterogeneity and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: 567 patients divided between 266 robotic and 301 LPLND. Overall operation time was longer in the robotic group than laparoscopic group (difference in means = 67.11, 95% CI [30.80, 103.42], p < 0.001) but the difference in the pelvic lateral lymph dissection time was not statistically significant (difference in means =  - 1.212, 95% CI [ - 11.594, 9.171], p = 0.819). There were fewer overall complications in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (OR = 1.589, 95% CI [1.009, 2.503], p = 0.046), especially with respect to urinary retention (OR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.277, 3.894], p = 0.005). More pelvic lateral lymph nodes were harvested by robotic surgery than by laparoscopy (differences in means =  - 1.992, 95% CI [ - 2.421, 1.563], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection was associated with more pelvic lateral lymph nodes harvested and lower overall complications, especially urinary retention when compared to LPLND. Further studies are needed to reinforce these findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed.

RESULTS

Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

Risk factors for lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objective

Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastasis is one of the prominent reasons for local recurrence (LR) in patients with rectal cancer (RC). The evaluation criteria of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for patients in eastern (mainly in Japan) and western countries have been controversial. The aim of this study was to analyse the risk factors for LPLN metastasis in order to guide surgical methods.

Methods

We searched relevant databases (Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 05 October 2022 to evaluate the risk factors for LPLN metastasis in patients with RC in this meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 24 articles with 5843 patients were included in this study. The overall results showed that female sex, age <60 years, pretherapeutic CEA level >5 ng/ml, clinical T4 stage (cT4), clinical M1 stage (cM1), distance of the tumour from the anal verge (AV) <50 mm, tumour centre located below the peritoneal reflection (Rb), short axis (SA) of LPLN ≥8 mm before nCRT, short axis (SA) of LPLN ≥5 mm after nCRT, border irregularity of LPLN, tumour size ≥50 mm, pathological T3-4 stage (pT3-4), pathological N2 stage (pN2), mesorectal lymph node metastasis (MLNM), lymphatic invasion (LI), venous invasion (VI), CRM (+) and poor differentiation were significant risk factors for LPLN metastasis (P <0.05).

Conclusion

This study summarized almost all potential risk factors of LPLN metastasis and expected to provide effective treatment strategies for patients with LRC. According to the risk factors of lateral lymph node metastasis, we can adopt different comprehensive treatment strategies. High-risk patients can perform lateral lymph node dissection to effectively reduce local recurrence; In low-risk patients, we can avoid overtreatment, reduce complications and trauma caused by lateral lymph node dissection, and maximize patient survival and quality of life.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection of advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study comparing short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The importance of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is gradually being recognized in Europe and the USA, where some patients were affected by uncontrolled lateral pelvic lymph node (LLNs) metastasis, even after total mesorectal excision (TME) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was thus to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) with laparoscopic (L-LLND) to clarify the safety and advantages of R-LLND.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included in this single-institution retrospective study between January 2013 and July 2022. We compared the short-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent R-LLND and 33 patients who underwent L-LLND.

RESULTS

En bloc LLND was performed in significantly more patients in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (48.1% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.006). The numbers of LLNs on the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D) harvested were significantly higher in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (2 [0-9] vs. 1 [0-6]; p = 0.023). The total operative time was significantly longer in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (587 [460-876] vs. 544 [398-859]; p = 0.003); however, the LLND time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.718). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study clarified the safety and technical feasibility of R-LLND with respect to L-LLND. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach offers a key advantage, allowing significantly more LLNs to be harvested from the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D). Prospective clinical trials examining the oncological superiority of R-LLND are thus necessary in the near future.

Extended Lymphadenectomy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The surgical treatment of advanced low rectal cancer remains controversial. Extended lymphadenectomy (EL) is the preferred option in the East, especially in Japan, while neoadjuvant radiotherapy is the treatment of choice in the West. This review was undertaken to review available evidence supporting each of the therapies.

Methods

All studies looking at EL were included in this review. A comprehensive search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was defined as 5-year overall survival, with secondary outcomes including 3-year overall survival, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival, length of operation, and number of complications.

Results

Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant publication bias. There was statistically significant difference in 5-year survival for patient who underwent EL (odds ratio, 1.34; 95 confidence interval, 0.09–0.5; P=0.006). There were no differences noted in secondary outcomes except for length of the operations.

Conclusion

There is evidence supporting EL in rectal cancer; however, it is difficult to interpret and not easily transferable to a Western population. Further research is necessary on this important topic.

Prognostic Value of Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLD) for locally advanced rectal cancer remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of LPLD in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for publications comparing radical resection plus LPLD (LPLD group) with single radical resection (non-LPLD group) for locally advanced rectal cancer. A total of 15 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria and were assessed. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used where indicated, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

LPLD significantly increased grade 3-4 postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR]1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.02; P = 0.03) compared with non-LPLD. There were no significant differences in 5-y overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05; P = 0.17), 5-y disease-free survival (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.60-2.09; P = 0.73), local recurrence (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53-1.51; P = 0.68) or distant recurrence (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.12; P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that LPLD significantly increased grade 3-4 postoperative complications but did not increase 5-y overall survival or 5-y disease-free survival compared with single radical resection for locally advanced rectal cancer. Furthermore, it did not decrease the local recurrence or distant recurrence rates. Thus, more multicenter large-scale randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further explore whether the long-term survival benefits of LPLD truly exist.

Optimal Size Criteria for Lateral Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery without lateral lymph node dissection is the current standard treatment in patients with rectal cancer, recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of adding lateral lymph node dissection to total mesorectal excision in patients with suspected lateral lymph node metastasis. However, the optimal indication for lateral lymph node dissection after chemoradiotherapy has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to establish the optimal indication for lateral lymph node dissection after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single referral hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 279 patients with rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery between 2007 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The largest lateral lymph nodes on CT were retrospectively assessed and compared with the pathologic results of dissected lateral lymph nodes and recurrences in lateral lymph node areas.

RESULTS

The incidence of lateral lymph node metastasis after chemoradiotherapy was estimated to be 9.3%. Although patients with lateral lymph node metastasis frequently developed distant recurrence, 40.4% survived for >5 years without recurrence. An analysis of the lateral lymph node sizes showed that lateral lymph node size ≥8 mm before chemoradiotherapy was the optimal criterion for lateral lymph node dissection, with a sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 78.7%. Using this criterion, 72.0% of the patients could be spared lateral lymph node dissection.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the retrospective nature of the present study, the selection of patients who underwent lateral lymph node dissection was biased.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal indication for lateral lymph node dissection was lateral lymph node size ≥8 mm before chemoradiotherapy. Cancer could be eradicated in >30% of patients with lateral lymph node metastasis by dissecting metastatic lateral lymph nodes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B428.

CRITERIOS DE TAMAO PTIMO PARA LA DISECCIN DE GANGLIOS LINFTICOS LATERALES DESPUS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:Aunque la quimiorradioterapia seguida por cirugía radical sin disección de ganglios linfáticos laterales es el tratamiento estándar actual en pacientes con cáncer de recto, estudios recientes han demostrado beneficios de agregar disección de ganglios linfáticos laterales a la escisión mesorrectal total en pacientes con sospecha de metástasis de ganglios linfáticos laterales. Sin embargo, no se ha determinado la indicación óptima para la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales después de la quimiorradioterapia.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo establecer la indicación óptima para la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales después de la quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un solo hospital de referencia.PACIENTES:Se inscribieron retrospectivamente un total de 279 pacientes con cáncer de recto que se sometieron a quimiorradioterapia seguida por cirugía radical entre 2007 y 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Los ganglios linfáticos laterales más grandes en la tomografía computarizada se evaluaron retrospectivamente y se compararon con los resultados patológicos de los ganglios linfáticos laterales disecados y recidivas en las áreas de los ganglios linfáticos laterales.RESULTADOS:Se estimó que la incidencia de metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos laterales después de la quimiorradioterapia fue del 9,3%. Aunque los pacientes con metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos laterales con frecuencia desarrollaron recurrencia a distancia, el 40,4% sobrevivió durante más de 5 años sin recurrencia. Un análisis de los tamaños de los ganglios linfáticos laterales mostró que la mayor dimensión de los ganglios linfáticos laterales ≥ 8 mm antes de la quimiorradioterapia eran el criterio óptimo para la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales, con una sensibilidad y especificidad del 92,3% y 78,7%, respectivamente. Utilizando este criterio, el 72,0% de los pacientes podría evitarse la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva del presente estudio, la selección de pacientes que fueron sometidos a disección de ganglios linfáticos laterales fue sesgada.CONCLUSIÓN:La indicación óptima para la disección de los ganglios linfáticos laterales fue la dimensión mayor de los ganglios linfáticos laterales ≥ 8 mm antes de la quimiorradioterapia. El cáncer se podría erradicar en más del 30% de los pacientes con metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos laterales disecando los ganglios linfáticos laterales metastásicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B428.

Long-term clinical outcomes of total mesorectal excision and selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced low rectal cancer: a comparative study of a robotic versus laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes of minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) are not completely known. The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic LPND in low rectal cancer patients with suspected lymph node metastasis in the pelvic sidewall.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of all rectal cancer patients who had laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) with LPND between March 2006 and June 2016. Stage IV patients were excluded. The outcomes of patients who had laparoscopic and robotic TME with LPND were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients had laparoscopic LPND and 70 had robotic LPND. No significant differences in patient characteristics were observed between the two groups. The urinary retention rate was lower in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (7.1% vs. 24.1%; p = 0.043). During a median follow-up of 44.3 months, the overall recurrence rates were 48.3% and 31.4% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.175). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 50.4% and 67.0% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.227). The 5-year overall survival rates were 65.0% and 92.2% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME with LPND is safe and feasible. In particular, it is associated with lower urinary retention. Robotic TME with LPND might yield a similar local recurrence rate and 5-year disease-free survival, but favorable long-term overall survival as compared to the laparoscopic approach. However, considering the retrospective nature and both major variables of TME and LPND involved together, this should be cautiously interpreted.

Rise and fall of total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 11,366 patients

The role of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) during total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is still controversial. Many reviews were published on prophylactic LLND in rectal cancer surgery, some biased by heterogeneity of overall associated treatments. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a timeline analysis of different treatments associated to prophylactic LLND vs no-LLND during TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS and WOS for publications up to 1 September 2020. We considered RCTs and CCTs comparing oncologic and functional outcomes of TME with or without LLND in patients with rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four included articles and 29 studies enrolled 11,606 patients. No difference in 5-year local recurrence (in every subgroup analysis including preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), 5-year distant and overall recurrence, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival was found between LLND group and non LLND group. The analysis of post-operative functional outcomes reported hindered quality of life (urinary, evacuatory and sexual dysfunction) in LLND patients when compared to non LLND.

CONCLUSION

Our publication does not demonstrate that TME with LLND has any oncological advantage when compared to TME alone, showing that with the advent of neoadjuvant therapy, the advantage of LLND is lost. In this review, the most important bias is the heterogeneous characteristics of patients, cancer staging, different neoadjuvant therapy, different radiotherapy techniques and fractionation used in different studies. Higher rate of functional post-operative complications does not support routinely use of LLND.

Outcome of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection with total mesorectal excision in treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the gold standard treatment of mid- and low-lying rectal cancer. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has been suggested as an approach to decrease recurrence and improve survival. Our meta-analysis presented here aimed to review the current outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection and total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search querying electronic databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We reviewed articles that reported the outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection combined with total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone. The main outcome measures were local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall and disease free-survival, and complications.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 29 studies of 10,646 patients. Of those patients, 39.4% underwent total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. The median operation time for the lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was significantly longer than total mesorectal excision alone (360 minutes versus 294.7 minutes, P = .02). Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was associated with higher odds of overall complications (odds ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.87, P < .001) and urinary dysfunction (odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-3.67, P = .008) than total mesorectal excision alone. Both groups had similar rates of male sexual dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-2.79, P = .08), anastomotic leakage (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.93, P = .59), local recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.25, P = .79), distant metastasis (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.2, P = .72), overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.056, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.13, P = .13), and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.07, P = .37).

CONCLUSION

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection was not associated with a significant reduction of recurrence rates or improvement in survival as compared with total mesorectal excision alone; however, LPLND was associated with longer operation time and increased complication rate.

Total mesorectal excision plus lateral lymph node dissection vs TME on rectal cancer patients: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our study is the first meta-analysis to compare total mesorectal excision (TME) plus lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) with TME on rectal cancer patients regarding outcomes including overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, complications, urinary dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for publications up to October 2019. Two investigators independently screened the studies for eligibility and extracted specific data. Relevant data were analyzed by Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

Patients in TME + LLND group suffered more complications (OR = 1.48, 95% CI [1.07, 2.03], P = 0.02) compared with TME group; no significant difference was observed in overall survival (HR = 1.11, 95% CI [0.77, 1.61], P = 0.57), disease-free survival (HR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.85, 1.30], P = 0.64), local recurrence (OR = 0.93, 95% CI [0.56, 1.54], P = 0.78), and urinary dysfunction (OR = 1.60, 95% CI [0.66, 3.87], P = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

TME + LLND may cause more complications compared with TME on rectal cancer patients. However, the definite conclusion still requires more researches.

Update on indications for lateral lymph node dissection in the management of lower rectal cancer

The presence of lateral lymph node (LLN) metastasis was associated with higher local recurrence risk in patients with lower rectal cancer. The role of LLN dissection has not been fully determined despite prolonged debate that last for few decades. The practical difference between Japan and the West was the main culprit. Japanese used to rely on surgical removal of LLN as local control while the West believed that LLN dissection could be spared after giving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. As time passed, it is getting more common to combine both treatments. With the quality improvement in magnetic resonance imaging, we can now predict the chance of LLN metastasis and evaluate the treatment response with good accuracy. Few large analyses have been published recently and provided us more insight into this topic. In this review, we summarized and provided an update on the latest evidence. We have proposed a treatment algorithm on the management of LLNs which may help clinical decision and provide idea for further research.

The efficacy and safety of lateral lymph node dissection for patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lateral lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer was first reported in the 1950s, since then, there has been an on-going debate about the value of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) in the management of rectal cancer. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of LLND for the patients with rectal cancer. To collect clinical studies for the comparison of LLND and non-LLND in patients with rectal cancer, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to 2019.A total of 26 studies, including 6865 patients were enrolled. Data processing and statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.0 software and Review Manager 5.3 software. Outcome measures included the 5-year survival rate, recurrence rate, perioperative outcomes, urinary function, and male sexual function. Regarding efficacy, our meta-analysis results showed no difference in 5-year disease-free survival rate and local recurrences between the two groups, the Hazard Ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was1.07 and 0.89 to 1.28 (P = 0.496),and the Odds Ratio(OR) and 95% CI were 0.90 and 0.76 to 1.06 (P = 0.208), respectively. Concerning safety, the incidence of urinary dysfunction and male sexual dysfunction was significantly increased in the LLND group (OR = 2.14, 95%CI = 1.21-3.79, P = 0.009), and (OR = 4.19, 95%CI = 1.55-11.33, P = 0.005), respectively. In conclusion, LLND did not improve the long-term prognosis of patients with rectal cancer, and was associated with increased urinary dysfunction and male sexual dysfunction.