Port site metastasis after surgery for renal cell carcinoma: harbinger of future metastasis

Long-Term Follow-Up in Patients Undergoing Renal Mass Biopsy: Seeding is not Anecdotal

INTRODUCTION

Renal biopsy is recommended if the outcome might alter therapeutic decisions for patients who present with renal masses of unclear etiology. However, little is known about long-term risks related to this procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of an institutional database maintained by a tertiary referral center that included patients who underwent renal biopsies between 2003 and 2005 with a follow-up of at least 15 years. Renal biopsies were taken percutaneously with a coaxial technique according to guideline recommendations and included off-line ultrasound guidance.

RESULTS

We identified 106 patients who underwent biopsies for a renal mass of unclear etiology. The median age was 58.7 years (43.7-66.2). A median of 4.2 (3-6) biopsies were collected from each patient. Tumor seeding leading to local growth was identified in 6 patients (5,7%) after a median follow-up of 8.2 years. Four of these lesions that were resected exhibited the same histology as the original biopsy result; these patients experienced no further recurrence. In 45 patients (42%), the biopsy results led to a therapy other than surgery (n = 28 lymphoma, n = 6 metastasis from other malignancies, n = 11 oncocytoma). The remaining 61 patients (58%) were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma treated either surgically or with ablation. None of the patients developed metastatic spread related to tumor seeding.

CONCLUSION

Tumor seeding after renal mass biopsy is a rare, but relevant risk associated with this procedure. As indications for renal mass biopsy increase, longer-term follow-up and improved biopsy techniques should be considered to address this complication.

Robotic Partial vs Radical Nephrectomy for Clinical T3a Tumors: A Narrative Review

Introduction: T3a renal masses include a diverse group of tumors that invade the perirenal and/or sinus fat, pelvicaliceal system, or renal vein. The majority of cT3a renal masses represent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and have historically been treated with radical nephrectomy (RN) given their aggressive nature. With the adoption of minimally invasive approaches to renal surgery, the combination of improved observation, pneumoperitoneum, and robotic articulation has allowed urologists to consider partial nephrectomy (PN) for more complex tumors. Herein, we review the existing literature regarding robot-assisted PN (RAPN) and robot-assisted RN (RARN) in the management of T3a renal masses. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed for articles evaluating the role of RARN and RAPN for T3a renal masses. Search parameters were limited to English language studies. Applicable studies were abstracted and included in this narrative review. Results: T3a RCC caused by renal sinus fat or venous involvement is associated with ∼50% lower cancer-specific survival than those with perinephric fat invasion alone. CT and MRI can both be used to stage cT3a tumors, however, MRI is more accurate when assessing venous involvement. Upstaging to pT3a RCC during RAPN does not confer a worse prognosis than pT3a tumors treated with RARN; however, patients who undergo RAPN for T3a RCC with venous involvement have relatively higher rates of recurrence and metastasis. Intraoperative tools including drop-in ultrasound, near-infrared fluorescence, and 3D virtual models improve the ability to perform RAPN for T3a tumors. In well-selected cases, warm ischemia times remain reasonable. Conclusions: cT3a renal masses represent a diverse group of tumors. Depending on substratification of cT3a, RARN or RAPN can be employed for treatment of such masses.

Influence of Perioperative Anesthesia on Cancer Recurrence: from Basic Science to Clinical Practice

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

In this review, we will summarize the effects of these perioperative anesthetics and anesthetic interventions on the immune system and tumorigenesis as well as address the related clinical evidence on cancer-related mortality and recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For many solid tumors, surgery is one of the major therapies. Unfortunately, surgery promotes angiogenesis, shedding of circulating cancer cells, and suppresses immunity. Hence, the perioperative period has a close relationship with cancer metastases or recurrence. In the perioperative period, patients require multiple anesthetic management including anesthetics, anesthetic techniques, and body temperature control. Preclinical and retrospective studies have found that these anesthetic agents and interventions have complex effects on cancer outcomes. Therefore, well-planned, prospective, randomized controlled trials are required to explore the effects of different anesthetics and techniques on long-term outcomes after cancer surgery. Due to the conflicting effects of anesthetic management on cancer recurrence, further preclinical and clinical trials are required and beneficial to the development of systemic cancer therapies.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Our experience and literature review

OBJECTIVE

Peritoneal carcinomatosis associated with renal cell carcinoma is an infrequent entity, usually associated with large renal masses, and with a very rare presentation after surgery of localized renal tumors. Our objective is to review the literature and analyze the factors involved in the development of peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in localized tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present our experience with two cases of peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. We reviewed the literature and analyzed the factors associated with the development of peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic partial surgery in renal cell carcinoma.

RESULTS

Between 2005-2018, 225 patients underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal neoplasia in our service. Two patients developed peritoneal carcinomatosis during follow-up, at 1.5 and 7 years after surgery. Few cases of postoperative peritoneal carcinomatosis for renal neoplasia have been described in the literature, being more frequently associated with large renal masses, with multiple metastases at diagnosis, with a poor prognosis. The dissemination of tumor cells during surgery, direct tumor extension or metastasis by hematogenous route, are among the factors involved in the development of this condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy constitutes a very rare event. However, it should be taken into consideration, and, since it is the only factor we can influence, we must maximize precautions during the surgical act, following oncological principles.

Outcomes for Atypical Tumor Recurrences Following Minimally Invasive Kidney Cancer Operations

Background

We managed a cohort of patients treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for a kidney tumor presenting with atypical tumor recurrence (ATR) involving port sites, intraperitoneal carcinomatosis, and nephrectomy bed/perinephric tumor implants.

Objective

To determine the clinical characteristics, management, and oncologic outcomes for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who develop ATR following curative-intent MIS for partial or radical nephrectomy.

Design, setting, and participants

The study cohort comprised patients from 1999 to 2021 with localized RCC managed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA) after MIS for partial or radical nephrectomy who developed ATR. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We collected data on clinicopathologic characteristics, treatments, time to ATR, and overall survival.

Results and limitations

The median age of the 58 RCC patients was 61 yr. Forty-one patients (71%) were male, 26 (45%) had robot-assisted operations, and 39 (67%) had clear cell RCC. Twenty-nine patients had stage pT1 disease (50%) and ten (17%) had positive surgical margins. The most common ATR site was perinephric/nephrectomy bed implants (n = 28, 48%). Management included: surgical resection alone (n = 11, 19%), systemic therapy alone (n = 12, 21%), surgical resection and systemic therapy (n = 17, 29%), and palliative care (n = 8, 14%). At median follow-up of 59 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 28–92), the median time to ATR was 12 mo (IQR 5–28). Overall survival at 5 yr was 69.0% (95% confidence interval 57.4–83.1%) with only nine patients alive with no evidence of disease. Limitations include the potential for referral, detection, and selection biases, as well as uncertainty regarding the true incidence of ATR.

Conclusions

ATR following MIS for partial or radical nephrectomy is an understudied, poor prognostic event which leads to a heavy treatment burden. Further investigation into its etiology and means of prevention is warranted.

Patient summary

Patients experiencing recurrence of kidney cancer in an atypical site require a heavy treatment burden and have a guarded overall prognosis. Continued research is needed to determine the precise incidence of these recurrences and identify methods for mitigating them.

Robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma: the Princess Margaret Experience

PURPOSE

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a treatment option for men in a primary and post-chemotherapy setting. The aim of this review was to explore the published data looking at feasibility, safety and outcomes of robotic RPLND for CSI/II NSGCT but we will in particular highlight how we have approached adoption of robotic RPLND at the Princess Margaret.

METHODS

A review and summary of the published data to date was performed regarding the role of robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma.

RESULTS

Published series of robotic RPLND to date have proven feasibility and safety in experienced centres. Less blood loss, shorter length of stay and decreased morbidity are promising findings. Our data from Princess Margaret strengthen the argument of oncologic efficacy as we operated only on patients with known retroperitoneal disease (Stage at RPLND was IIA (n = 15, 55.6%), IIB (n = 9, 33.3%), IIC (n = 1, 3.7%) and III (n = 2, 7.4%)), did not use adjuvant chemotherapy and found a relapse rate (11%) similar to open RPLND.

CONCLUSIONS

The debate is ongoing regarding the role of robotic RPLND- the excellent oncological outcomes achieved by an open RPLND are the minimum starting point for robotic RPLND. Until such time that robotic RPLND is proven to be gold standard it should be performed in experienced centres by high volume RPLND surgeons and in the setting of a protocol.

Complications of renal interventions: a pictorial review of CT findings

A number of potential vascular and non-vascular complications can arise from surgical, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, radiotherapy and radiological renal interventions, including percutaneous image-guided biopsy and drainage. Computed tomography scan is usually one of the first and most important diagnostic imaging examinations requested when a potential complication is suspected. There are a wide range of common and uncommon potential complications from renal interventions. An understanding of underlying risk factors is important to reduce potential complications from renal intervention. Radiologists play a crucial role in recognising and diagnosing post-renal intervention complications on computed tomography scans, which could significantly improve the patient’s prognosis.

[Retrovesical recurrence of renal cell carcinoma 14 years after laparoscopic nephrectomy: a case report]

Local recurrence or metachronous distant metastasis of renal cell carcinoma mostly occurs in the first five years after radical or partial nephrectomy. Nevertheless, late local recurrences or metachronous metastases are regularly observed. The most common metastatic sites are lung and bones, although unusual metastatic sites are also possible. We present the case of a 70-year-old patient with a solitary recurrence of a clear renal cell carcinoma in retrovesical location after a relapse-free survival of 14 years. We performed cystoprostatectomy with an ileal conduit, resecting the tumour completely (in sano). The long-term prognosis of the patient cannot be estimated as yet.Despite the fact that a solitary and very late recurrence of a renal cell carcinoma in retrovesical location is extremely rare, late recurrence is a specific characteristic of renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, long-term follow-up for at least 15 years is required. Curative surgical resection is the treatment of choice for such late solitary recurrences.

Inflammatory Pseudotumor Formation at a Port Site after Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma

Inflammatory pseudotumors (IPTs) are benign masses arising from nonspecific inflammatory conditions including surgical invasion. We herein report the rare case of an IPT mimicking port-site metastasis in a 69-year-old patient who underwent retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for stage T1a renal cell carcinoma. Radiological examination performed six months after the surgery revealed the presence of a mass underneath the abdominal wall which coincided with a port site. The tumor was resected by laparoscopic transperitoneal approach, and histological examination led to the diagnosis of an IPT that consists of xanthogranulomatous inflammation. We also discuss the etiology of IPT formation and features distinguishing IPTs from port-site metastasis.

An unusual case of sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma presenting in the skin by direct extension at a laparoscopic port site

Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is known for its propensity to metastasize widely throughout the body, cutaneous metastases are uncommon and seen in less than 3% of RCCs. A 56-year-old man presented with a painful red lesion with satellite nodules on his abdomen at a laparoscopic port site from a partial nephrectomy for a pT1a clear-cell RCC that was performed 28 months prior. The lesion was excised; however, after excision the lesion recurred with continued pain and drainage from the surgical site. This was treated with multiple courses of antibiotics. Because of the persistent nature of the lesion, it was re-biopsied, and an atypical, keratin-positive, spindle-cell proliferation was identified within the dermis. The patient's previous skin excision was reexamined, and the same atypical cells were identified within large areas of necrosis, granulation tissue, and fibrosis. Further workup was performed on the initial excision, and the atypical cells showed expression of CD10, CAIX, PAX8, EMA, and vimentin, consistent with cutaneous involvement by RCC. Because of the rarity of skin metastases in RCC and the location at a previous laparoscopic port site, this lesion is presumed to have resulted from direct extension of tumor at the time of surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior.

Aim

To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Methods

Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [− 81.60, − 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = − 1.73, 95% CI = [− 2.21, − 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = − 1.26 days, 95% CI = [− 1.40, − 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = − 1.37 days, 95% CI = [− 2.05, − 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.58 days, 95% CI = [− 0.79, − 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = − 0.50 days, 95% CI = [− 0.90, − 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = − 0.64 days, 95% CI = [− 1.24, − 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval’s trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions.

Conclusion

LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.

Local Recurrence Following Resection of Intermediate-High Risk Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Anatomical Classification and Analysis of the ASSURE (ECOG-ACRIN E2805) Adjuvant Trial

PURPOSE

We describe what is to our knowledge a novel classification system for local recurrence after surgery of renal cell carcinoma. We assessed its prognostic implications using prospective, randomized controlled data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried the ASSURE (Sunitinib Malate or Sorafenib Tosylate in Treating Patients With Kidney Cancer That Was Removed By Surgery) (ECOG-ACRIN [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network] E2805) trial data for patients with fully resected, intermediate-high risk, nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma with local recurrence. We used certain definitions, including type I-single recurrence in a remnant kidney or ipsilateral renal fossa, type II-single recurrence in the ipsilateral vasculature, the ipsilateral adrenal gland or a lymph node, type III-single recurrence in other intra-abdominal soft tissues or organs and type IV-any combination of types I-III or multiple recurrences of a single type. Multivariable logistic regression and the log rank test were performed to identify clinicopathological predictors and compare survival, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 1,943 patients 300 (15.4%) had local recurrence, which was type I, II, III and IV in 66 (22.0%), 97 (32.3%), 87 (29.0%) and 50 (16.7%), respectively. Surgical modality (minimally invasive vs open) and type of surgery (partial vs radical) did not predict any local recurrence. Five-year cancer specific survival and overall survival were worse in patients with type IV recurrence (each p <0.001). There was no difference in survival among patients with types I to III recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with intermediate-high risk nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma local recurrence appears to be a function of biology more than of surgical modality or surgery type. The prognosis for solitary intra-abdominal local recurrences appear similar regardless of location (types I-III). Local recurrences involving multiple sites and/or subdivisions are associated with worse survival (type IV).

Incidence of Port Site Metastasis in Laparoscopic Radical Nephroureterectomy: Single-institution Experience

OBJECTIVE

To address the incidence and potential risk factors of port site metastasis (PSM) in patients who underwent laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2018 laparoscopic RNU were performed in 240 patients at our institution, including 145 with renal pelvic tumor and 135 with ureteral tumor (40 patients have both tumor). Laparoscopies were performed through the transperitoneal approach in 28 patients, and retroperitoneal in 212 patients. Clinical data are retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Perioperative and pathologic data are available in all 240 cases. After a mean follow-up of 12.6 months (range 3-45 months), 4 patients (1.7%) developed PSM following retroperitoneal RNU at an average of 4.3 months. Tumor stage is T2N0M0 in one, T3N0M0 in two, and T3N1M0 in one, respectively. Tumor grade are high-grade urothelial carcinoma in all. The incidence of PSM is 2.8% (4/145) and 0.7% (1/135) in renal pelvic and ureteral tumor, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We report a 1.7% incidence of PSM in upper tract urothelial carcinoma after laparoscopic RNU. We suggest that air leakage during retroperitoneal approach, high tumor stage (pT3) and grade, and advanced renal pelvic tumor with micrometastases could increase the potential risks of PSM.

Use of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer in Dogs and Cats

Surgical management of neoplastic disease is common in veterinary medicine. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has gained widespread acceptance by veterinary surgeons and is experiencing rapid growth and frequency of use. Many neoplastic diseases in the abdomen and thorax of dogs and cats can be treated as effectively with MIS as with traditional open surgery. Additionally, MIS allows for less invasive options for organ biopsy in cancer patients either for initial diagnosis or for staging to inform prognosis and treatment. Despite the recent increase in MIS, additional research is required to further characterize the benefits to oncology patients and to ensure that surgical oncologic principles and patient outcomes are not compromised by the use of MIS.

Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery has been recommended as an optional therapy for patients with early gastric cancer, whether patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) could benefit from laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains elusive due to a lack of comprehensive clinical data. To evaluate the efficacy of LADG, we conducted a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for AGC in North China.

METHODS

In this RCT, after patients were enrolled according to the eligibility criteria, they were preoperatively assigned to LADG or ODG arm randomly with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the morbidity and mortality within 30 postoperative days to evaluate the surgical safety of LADG. The secondary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov as NCT02464215.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and August 2017, a total of 446 patients with cT2-4aN0-3M0 (AJCC 7th staging system) were enrolled. Of these, 222 patients underwent LADG and 220 patients underwent ODG were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The compliance rate of D2 lymph node dissection was identical between the LADG and ODG arms (99.5%, P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed regarding the overall postoperative complication rate in two groups (LADG 13.1%, ODG 17.7%, P = 0.174). No operation-related death occurred in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial confirmed that LADG performed by credentialed surgeons was safe and feasible for patients with AGC compared with conventional ODG.

Surgical Scar Recurrence of Bone Metastases to the Femur: A Case Report

We report the case of a woman who presented with breast cancer metastases to the femur causing pathologic fracture of the femoral neck requiring surgery. She received adjuvant radiotherapy to the femur at that time that did not include the surgical scar tract. Almost four years after her surgery she presented with biopsy proven skin recurrence of breast cancer on the skin overlying her incision from her femoral surgery.

Further imaging confirmed significant soft-tissue disease involving the underlying surgical scar tract. This case provides important information about the possibility of surgical scar recurrence after surgery for bone metastases which could indicate the need to include the area of the surgical scar tract and the entire prosthetic material in the post-operative radiotherapy volume.

Progression to chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing nephrectomy for small renal masses: a price to pay for a therapeutic success?

Nephrectomy, which constitutes a gold-standard procedure for the treatment of renal-cell carcinoma (RCC), has been widely discussed in the past decade as a significant risk factor of the development of chronic kidney disease (CKD). RCC is the third most common genitourinary cancer in the United States, with an estimated more than 65,000 new cases and 14,970 deaths. The aim of this review was to precisely and comprehensively summarize the status of current knowledge in CKD risk factors after nephrectomy, the advantages of minimally invasive vs. radical nephrectomy, post-nephrectomy biomarkers of CKD, ways of post-operative CKD prevention and, therefore, better understand why various aspects of CKD after nephrectomy. The majority of current studies indicated a better long-term kidney function preservation in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy in comparison to those after radical nephrectomy. Furthermore, a nephron-sparing surgery should be a preferred first-line procedure among young patients with small renal masses. As partial nephrectomy is followed by a greater risk of adverse outcomes relative to radical nephrectomy, a potential survival benefit should always be considered especially in the elderly or patients with comorbidities.

Perioperative events influence cancer recurrence risk after surgery

Surgery is a mainstay treatment for patients with solid tumours. However, despite surgical resection with a curative intent and numerous advances in the effectiveness of (neo)adjuvant therapies, metastatic disease remains common and carries a high risk of mortality. The biological perturbations that accompany the surgical stress response and the pharmacological effects of anaesthetic drugs, paradoxically, might also promote disease recurrence or the progression of metastatic disease. When cancer cells persist after surgery, either locally or at undiagnosed distant sites, neuroendocrine, immune, and metabolic pathways activated in response to surgery and/or anaesthesia might promote their survival and proliferation. A consequence of this effect is that minimal residual disease might then escape equilibrium and progress to metastatic disease. Herein, we discuss the most promising proposals for the refinement of perioperative care that might address these challenges. We outline the rationale and early evidence for the adaptation of anaesthetic techniques and the strategic use of anti-adrenergic, anti-inflammatory, and/or antithrombotic therapies. Many of these strategies are currently under evaluation in large-cohort trials and hold promise as affordable, readily available interventions that will improve the postoperative recurrence-free survival of patients with cancer.

Port site recurrence after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a case report

Background

Due to the recent development of laparoscopic devices, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is the standard procedure for localized renal cell carcinoma. However, some studies have reported postoperative port site metastasis in several cancers.

Case presentation

A 68-year-old Asian-Japanese man was referred to our hospital for a further examination of his right renal tumor in 2009. Due to a clinical suspicion of renal cell carcinoma, laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed. The histopathological diagnosis was clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Follow-up computed tomography revealed a mass between the internal oblique muscle of his abdomen and the transverse muscle of his abdomen in 2014. The tumor size gradually increased, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography revealed the accumulation of fludeoxyglucose in that tumor with maximum standardized uptake value of 2.7. Based on these findings, port site recurrence was suspected, and tumor resection was performed in 2017. The pathological diagnosis was metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Conclusions

Here we report a rare case of port site metastasis that was successfully treated 7 years after laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Incidence of abdominal wall metastases following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in patients with head and neck cancer

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are an effective modality for enteral nutrition in patients with head and neck cancer; however, there have been documented case reports of "seeding" of the abdominal wall by the theoretic risk of dragging the tube along the tumor during PEG placement. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence and contributing risk factors leading to metastasis to the abdominal wall following PEG placement in patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients diagnosed with head and neck malignancy who underwent PEG placement between 1/5/2009 and 12/22/2014. Variables collected included development of abdominal wall metastases, type of malignancy and tumor characteristics, smoking history, PEG placement technique, and survival following recurrence. Data were then analyzed for overall trends.

RESULTS

Out of 777 patients analyzed, a total of five patients with head and neck malignancy were identified with abdominal wall metastasis following PEG tube placement with an overall incidence of 0.64% over an average follow-up of 27.55 months. All of these patients underwent PEG tube insertion via a Pull technique. One patient was found to have a clinically evident and symptomatic stomal metastasis, while the other four patients had radiologically detected metastases either on CT or PET scan. All of the identified patients were found to have stage IV oral cancer at time of initial diagnosis of their head and neck malignancy, followed by widespread distant metastatic disease at time of presentation with their PEG site stomal metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal wall metastases following PEG placement are a rare but serious complication in patients with head and neck malignancy.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate.

METHODS

Literature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG.

CONCLUSIONS

For AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery.There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I(2) = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I(2) = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I(2) = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement.