Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery

Return to intended oncologic therapy after colectomy for stage III colon adenocarcinoma: Does surgical approach matter?

AIM

Return to intended oncologic treatment (RIOT) is an important paradigm for surgically resected cancers requiring multimodal treatment. Benefits of minimally invasive colectomy (MIC) may allow earlier initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and have associated survival benefits. We sought to determine if operative approach affects RIOT timing in resected stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

NCDB identified pathological stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients who underwent resection and received ACT. Propensity score matching and kernel density estimation compared operative approaches and conversion impact on intervals to RIOT.

RESULTS

A total of 15,132 open colectomies (OC) versus 14,107 MIC were included. MIC patients had two-days shorter median length of stay (LOS) (4 vs. 6 days; p < 0.001), one-week shorter median time to RIOT (6 vs. 7 weeks; p = 0.015) comparing 12,867 matched pairs. There was no difference in time interval to RIOT between the LC versus RC, converted MIC vs. OC groups. MIC was a favourable predictor of earlier RIOT (HR 1.14 [1.07-1.22]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MIC in stage III colon cancer is associated with a shorter time to RIOT when compared to OC. Since timely initiation of ACT may influence cancer outcome, MIC may be oncologically preferable. Prospective studies are needed to assess RIOT and survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer.

Keep Them on the Table: Outcomes Are Improved After Minimally Invasive Colectomy Despite Longer Operative Times in Patients With High-Risk Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

For high-risk patients, traditional surgical dogma advises open operations, with short operative times, to "get them off the table" instead of longer minimally invasive surgery approaches.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes in patients with high-risk colon cancer undergoing elective longer minimally invasive surgery operations compared with shorter open operations.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative cohort study.

SETTINGS

Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the national surgical database.

PATIENTS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients with colon cancer with ASA class 3 to 4 undergoing right and sigmoid colectomy between 2012 and 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared between short open and long minimally invasive groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3775 patients were identified as having undergone long minimally invasive right colectomy and short open right colectomy (33% open, 67% minimally invasive surgery), and 1042 patients were identified as having undergone long minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy and short open sigmoid colectomy (36% open, 64% minimally invasive). Patients undergoing long minimally invasive right colectomy had significantly lower rates of overall morbidity, severe adverse events, mortality, superficial surgical site infections, and wound disruptions, as well as discharge to a higher level of care and shorter length of stay ( p < 0.05). Patients undergoing long minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy had decreased rates of overall morbidity, severe adverse events, and length of stay, as well as discharge to a higher level of care compared with the patients undergoing short open sigmoid colectomy ( p < 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the retrospective nature and standardized outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer, outcomes were worse with shorter open compared with longer minimally invasive surgery operations. Focus should shift from getting patients "off the table" faster to longer, but safer, minimally invasive surgery in high-risk patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B642 .

MANTNGALOS SOBRE LA MESA HAY MEJORES RESULTADOS DESPUS DE COLECTOMA MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA A PESAR DE TIEMPOS QUIRRGICOS MS PROLONGADOS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE COLON DE ALTO RIESGO

ANTECEDENTES:Para los pacientes de alto riesgo, el dogma quirúrgico tradicional aconseja operaciones abiertas, con tiempos quirúrgicos cortos, con el fin de "sacarlos de la mesa" en lugar de enfoques quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos más prolongados.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar los resultados posoperatorios en pacientes electivos de cáncer de colon de alto riesgo sometidos a operaciones de cirugía mínimamente invasiva más prolongadas en comparación con operaciones abiertas más cortas.DISEÑO:Los resultados posoperatorios de pacientes con cáncer de colon con clase 3-4 de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiología sometidos a colectomía derecha o sigmoidea se compararon en un análisis multivariado. Se comparó el grupo de colectomía derecha abierta corta (tiempo operatorio <116 minutos) y colectomía derecha mínimamente invasiva larga (tiempo operatorio> 132 minutos). También se compararon la colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta (tiempo operatorio <127 minutos) y la colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva larga (tiempo operatorio> 161 minutos).ESCENARIO:Las intervenciones se realizaron en hospitales participantes en la base de datos quirúrgica nacional.PACIENTES:La base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica se utilizó para identificar a los pacientes con cáncer de colon con clase 3-4 de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiología sometidos a colectomía derecha y sigmoidea entre 2012-2017.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados posoperatorios a los treinta días entre el grupo de procedimientos abiertos cortos y el de mínimamente invasivos largos.RESULTADOS:Se identificó un total de 3.775 pacientes sometidos a colectomía derecha mínimamente invasiva larga y colectomía derecha abierta corta (33% abierta, 67% cirugía mínimamente invasiva) y se identificaron 1042 pacientes sometidos a colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva larga y colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta (36% abierta, 64% mínimamente invasiva). Los pacientes con colectomía derecha larga mínimamente invasiva tuvieron significativamente menor morbilidad general, eventos adversos graves, mortalidad, infecciones superficiales del sitio quirúrgico, dehiscencia de herida, alta a un nivel más alto de atención y estadía más corta ( p <0.05). Los pacientes con colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva prolongada tuvieron menor morbilidad general, eventos adversos graves, duración de la estadía y alta a un nivel más alto de atención en comparación con los pacientes con colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta ( p <0.05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por la naturaleza retrospectiva y las medidas de resultado estandarizadas.CONCLUSIONES:En los pacientes de alto riesgo sometidos a colectomía por cáncer de colon, los resultados fueron peores con operaciones abiertas más cortas en comparación con operaciones mínimamente invasivas más largas. El enfoque debe pasar de hacer que los pacientes "salgan rápido de la mesa quirúrgica" a una cirugía mínimamente invasiva más prolongada pero más segura, en pacientes de alto riesgo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B642 . (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Clinical Significance of Early Carcinoembryonic Antigen Change in Patients With Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of preoperative, postoperative, and trajectory changes in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent surgical resection for nonmetastatic CRC. The optimal cutoff values of preoperative CEA (CEA-pre), early postoperative CEA (CEA-post), and CEA level change (CEA-delta) were determined to maximize the differences in overall survival (OS) among groups. The patients were divided into three groups according to CEA-trend: normal, low CEA-pre; normalized, high CEA-pre/low CEA-post; elevated, high CEA-pre/high CEA-post. The integrated area under the curve (iAUC) was used to compare the discriminatory power of all variables.

Results

A total of 1019 patients diagnosed with stage I–III CRC were enrolled. The optimal cutoff values of CEA level were determined as 2.3 ng/mL for CEA-pre, 2.3 ng/mL for CEA-post, and -0.93 ng/mL for CEA-delta. Although subgroup dichotomization showed that CEA-pre, CEA-post, CEA-delta, and CEA-trend were all associated with OS in univariate analysis, CEA-trend was the only independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. The iAUC of CEA-trend was superior to that of CEA-pre, CEA-post, and CEA-delta. Compared with the normal group, the normalized group showed worse OS (p=.0007) in stage II patients but similar OS (p=.067) in stage III patients.

Conclusion

The optimal cutoff value of CEA level in the preoperative and postoperative periods was determined to be 2.3 ng/mL, and the combination of CEA-pre and CEA-post showed better prognostic stratification. However, its prognostic significance may differ depending on the CRC stage.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Assessment of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with GC who received RDG or LDG.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite the increasing use of RDG in patients with GC, its safety and efficacy compared to those of LDG have not been elucidated in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Three hundred patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ between September 2017 and January 2020 were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial at a high-volume hospital in China. The short-term outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The modified intention-to-treat analysis included data from 283 patients (RDG group: n = 141) and (LDG group: n = 142). Patients in the RDG group exhibited faster postoperative recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and reduced postoperative morbidity (9.2% vs 17.6%, respectively, P = 0.039). Higher extraperigastric lymph nodes (LNs) were retrieved in the RDG group (17.6 ± 5.8 vs 15.8 ± 6.6, P = 0.018) with lower noncompliance rate (7.7% vs 16.9%, respectively, P = 0.006). Additionally, patients in the RDG group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier [median (interquartile range) postoperative days: 28 (24-32) vs 32 (26-42), P = 0.003]. Although total hospital costs were higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group, the direct cost was lower for RDG than for LDG (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RDG is associated with a lower morbidity rate, faster recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and improved lymphadenectomy. Additionally, faster postoperative recovery in the RDG group enables early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Our results provide evidence for the application of RDG in patients with GC.

A Single Institution Propensity Score Weighted Analysis of Time to Chemotherapy After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Oncologic outcomes for colon cancer are optimal when chemotherapy is started within 6 to 8 weeks after surgery. The study objective was to investigate the impact of operative modality and urgency on the time interval from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective institutional tumor registry cohort study of open and laparoscopic/robotic colorectal resections for stage II-IV cancer between April 2010 and January 2018. Primary outcome was time from surgery to chemotherapy. Predictor variables were adjusted for imbalances by propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients met inclusion criteria: 171 elective (108 laparoscopic/robotic and 63 open) and 49 urgent colectomies. After propensity score weighting, there was no significant difference in time to chemotherapy between elective minimally invasive and open surgical approaches (48 days vs. 58 days, P = .187). Only 68.9% of minimally invasive and 50.8% of open colectomy patients started chemotherapy within 8 weeks of surgery. There was a significant difference (P = .037) among surgical sites with rectal resections having the longest (55 days), and right colectomies having the shortest (46 days), time to chemotherapy. Patients who had urgent operations had significantly longer hospital length of stay (P < .001) and higher post-discharge emergency department visit rates (P < .001) than the elective operation group. However, there was no significant difference in time to chemotherapy.

DISCUSSION

Neither operative modality nor operative urgency resulted in a significant difference in postoperative time to initiating chemotherapy. Future efforts should be focused on identifying postoperative recovery criteria and optimum multidisciplinary communication methods that allow recovered patients to start chemotherapy sooner.

A comparison of minimally invasive vs open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns regarding adequate oncological outcomes and perioperative complications, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has limited generalizability. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for resectable PDAC after propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The patients who underwent MIDP and ODP for PDAC between January 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, pathological outcomes, and overall and disease-free survival data were collected to compare MIDP and ODP. After PSM, perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 MIDP patients were compared with 156 ODP patients for resectable PDAC after PSM. Tumor size, TNM stage, differentiation, harvested lymph nodes, and positive lymph nodes were not different except for R1 resection and lymphovascular invasion between the MIDP and ODP groups. Operation times, overall complications, POPF, and adjuvant treatment were also not different between the two groups. The MIDP group had shorter hospital stays (10.0 vs 13.4 days, P < 0.001) and shorter interval times from surgery to adjuvant treatment (37.6 days vs 46.0 days, P = 0.002) than the ODP group. The MIDP group had better overall survival (34.9 vs 24.5 months, P = 0.012) and disease-free survival (16.2 vs 10.3 months, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has advantages with respect to postoperative hospital stay, interval between surgery, and adjuvant treatment. MIDP is associated with the possibility of improved survival rate for resectable PDAC.

Comparing the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after robotic and laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries: A case-controlled study with propensity score matching

Purpose

Early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery has shown better oncologic outcomes in previous studies. However, the clinical impact of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy has not been widely evaluated. Hence, the study's aim was to compare the influence of both surgical approaches on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery.

Methods

From June 2011 to September 2017, 289 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and III colon cancer. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score case matching was used at a 1:4 ratio. Finally, 190 patients were matched with 38 patients of the robotic surgery group and 152 patients of the laparoscopic surgery group.

Results

The operation time was longer in the robotic surgery group (297 minutes vs. 170 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). However, conversion rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, first flatus, first soft diet, length of stay, postoperative complication rate, and Clavien-Dindo grade were not significantly different between the two groups. Additionally, there was no difference in the time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy between the two groups (31.5 days vs. 29.0 days, respectively; P=0.226). Disease-free and overall survival rates were also not significantly different.

Conclusion

Robotic and laparoscopic surgeries showed no different impact on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. This finding suggests that the two surgical approaches offer similar postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer: a single-center analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

We evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic multivisceral resection (MVR) in selected patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC).

METHODS

We compared the clinical backgrounds, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic vs. those who underwent open MVR for LACC en bloc at our hospital.

RESULTS

Between January, 2004 and December, 2015, 140 patients underwent MVR of the primary tumor en bloc via laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group; LG, n = 69) or open surgery (open group; OG, n = 71). Laparoscopic surgery was selected mainly for tumors that invaded the bladder and abdominal wall. The LG patients had smaller tumors (60 vs. 80 mm, p < 0.001), less blood loss (30 vs. 181 g, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (12 vs. 19 days, p < 0.001) than the OG patients. Open conversion was required for two patients. Postoperative complications and R0 resection were comparable between the groups. Local recurrence occurred in two LG patients and two OG patients. The 5-year cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, and local disease-free survival of patients with pT4b disease were not significantly different between the LG and OG groups (90.3% vs. 75.2%, 71.2% vs. 67.6%, and 97.1% vs. 94.2%).

CONCLUSION

Although the LG included patients with lower risk, the short- and long-term outcomes were equivalent to those of the OG, which included patients with higher risk.

Clinical significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with stage III colon cancer who underwent surgery followed by FOLFOX chemotherapy

Local tumor immune response and host immunity have been suggested as important prognosticators respectively in colorectal cancer. However, the utility of combination of these parameters remains inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the combinational impact of local and host tumor immune response, as determined by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), in patients with stage III colon cancer. Patients with stage III colon cancer homogeneously treated with surgery followed by FOLFOX chemotherapy between Jan 2007 and Aug 2013 were included retrospectively. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tumor sections of local inflammatory infiltrate (TILs) were classified as 0–3 by the Klintrup-Mäkinen grading method. NLR was measured within 1 month of surgery. The association of NLR and TILs with survival, alone or combined, were measured using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Among 137 patients, 75 (54.7%) were identified as the high TIL group (TILs 2 and 3) and 97 (70.8%) as the low NLR group (NLR < 3). Of the patients with high TILs, 51 (68%) had a low NLR. In univariate analysis, operation time, complications, lymph node ratio (LNR), stage, TILs, and high TILs with low NLR were significantly associated with overall survival(OS). Multivariate Cox regression identified operation time, stage, and TILs as independent risk factors for OS. When high TILs with low NLR vs. others was entered into multivariate analysis, this also proved to be a significant predictor of OS (HR 4.1, 95% CI 1.1–14.2, P = 0.025), with an increased C-index and lower AIC value compared to TILs. Measuring TILs using H&E stained sections could stratify the prognosis of stage III colon cancer. Considering host immunity, using the combination of TILs and NLR, allowed the prognosis to be stratified in more detail.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Safety and feasibility of in-hospital early chemotherapy initiation after surgery in patients with stage II-IV colon cancer

Although it is recommended to initiate postoperative chemotherapy for colon cancer within 8 weeks after surgery, the feasibility and impact of initiating chemotherapy before discharge after surgical resection has not been investigated.Patients with stage II-IV colon cancer who received postoperative chemotherapy were dichotomized into early (chemotherapy initiation before discharge) and control (chemotherapy initiation after discharge) groups. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with delayed chemotherapy, defined as more than 6 or 8 weeks after surgery.From January 2004 to December 2012, of 729 patients with stage II-IV colon adenocarcinoma, 555 patients (76.1%) underwent postoperative chemotherapy. Of them, 181 (32.6%) patients were included in the early group. Time to initiation of chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the early group than in the control group (14.9 days vs 31.5 days, P < . 001). Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor stage and chemotherapy initiation strategy (odds ratio 8.4; 95% confidence interval, 1-66, P = .041) were independent predictors of delayed initiation of chemotherapy at more than 8 weeks. There was no difference in the completion rate of planned chemotherapy cycles between the 2 groups (P > .05).The strategy of initiating chemotherapy before discharge after surgery is safe and feasible and might reduce the potential delay in chemotherapy initiation in patients with colon cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery for stage III colon adenocarcinoma is associated with less delay to initiation of adjuvant systemic therapy and improved survival

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may improve surgical recovery and reduce time to adjuvant systemic therapy after colon cancer resection. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of MIS on the initiation of adjuvant systemic therapy and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

The 2010-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with resected stage III colon adenocarcinoma, and divided into MIS, which included laparoscopic and robotic approaches, and open surgery. Propensity-score matching was used to balanced open and MIS groups. The main outcome measures were delayed initiation of adjuvant systemic therapy (defined as > 8 weeks after surgery) and 5-year overall survival (OS). Multiple Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors for 5-year OS, including an interaction between delayed systemic therapy and MIS, and adjusted for clustering at the hospital level.

RESULTS

There were 86,680 patients that were included in this study. Overall, 45% (38,713) underwent MIS colectomy, of which 93% underwent laparoscopic and 7% robotic surgery. After matching, 33,183 open patients were balanced to 33,183 MIS patients. Patient, tumor, and facility characteristics were similar in the matched cohort. More patients in the MIS group received adjuvant therapy within 8 weeks of surgery (49% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), and fewer MIS patients did not receive any systemic therapy (30% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Delayed initiation of systemic therapy > 8 weeks was associated with worse 5-year OS (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.19-1.36). MIS was independently associated with improved survival (HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.86-0.97). This relationship remained even if 90-day mortality was excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS approaches are associated with less delay to the initiation of adjuvant systemic therapy and improved survival in patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma. Surgeons should favor MIS approaches for the treatment of stage III colon adenocarcinoma whenever possible.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer

This study was designed to investigate the effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer.Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at our institution from January 2008 to January 2015 with R0 resection, as determined by a pathological examination, were included in this study. According to the surgical approach, patients were divided into the laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) group and open gastrectomy (OG) group. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.Of the 206 patients enrolled in the study, 114 patients were included in the LG group and 92 patients were included in the OG group. There was no significant difference in patients' general data, including age, sex, medical comorbidities, and pathological staging, between the 2 groups. However, patients in the LG group had less intraoperative blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and a shorter hospital stay compared with patients in the OG group. There was no significant difference in the start time of adjuvant chemotherapy between the groups. However, compared with OG, LG had the following advantages: patients received more cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, more patients received a full dose of on-schedule adjuvant chemotherapy, and more patients completed ≥75% of the planned dose. Long-term survival and disease-free survival rates were higher in the LG than in the OG.In summary, LG can improve compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer.