Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches Are Safe and Appropriate in N2 Colorectal Cancer

Oncological outcomes following minimally invasive surgery for pathological N2M0 colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is safe and effective for patients with N2M0 colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between MIS and open surgery (Open) groups for patients with pathological (p)N2M0 CRC, and evaluate the oncological outcomes of MIS for pN2M0 CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 125 consecutive patients with pN2M0 CRC who underwent curative surgery between 2010 and 2017, using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 59.4 months. After PSM, we enrolled 68 patients (n = 34 in each group). The conversion rate was 9.6% for the entire patient cohort and 5.9% for the matched cohort. In colon cancer (CC), short-term outcomes were similar between groups. On the other hand, in rectal cancer (RC), estimated blood loss, rate of anastomosis leakage, and length of postsurgical stay were lower in the MIS group than the Open group. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with MIS. No surgical mortality was encountered in any group. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of 3-year local recurrence rate, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or recurrence-free survival among the entire patient cohort or the matched cohort, regardless of the primary tumor site (CC or RC). Surgical approach (MIS vs Open) had no significant influence on survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS is a safe and effective option for patients with pN2M0 CRC, with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes comparable to the open approach. MIS can be considered for patients with pN2M0 CRC.

Post-operative outcomes in patients with locally advanced colon cancer: a comparison of operative approach

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons may choose an open approach to locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) because of the elevated conversion rate (minimally invasive to open) in these patients (resulting in part from a judgment of the technical feasibility of a minimally invasive approach). Poorer outcomes have been suggested in those requiring conversion from a minimal access to an open approach; however, the influence of conversion has not been studied in LACC. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS), planned open (PO), and converted (CN) procedures to evaluate the influence of conversion in this subgroup.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the NSQIP database. Patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing elective resection were included; rectal/unknown tumor location, and T4b disease were excluded (to ensure homogeneity in surgical management). Patients were divided into cohorts based on approach: PO, MIS, and CN. Summary statistics were compared between groups. Multivariable analysis was conducted for mortality and morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

1286 cases were included (313 PO, 842 MIS, 131 CN); 10.2% underwent conversion. Those undergoing MIS had a shorter length of stay than those undergoing PO or CN (p < 0.0001). On univariable analysis, CN resulted in increased rates of any complication (p < 0.0001). CN also had a greater rate of anastomotic leak (p = 0.0046) and death (p = 0.05). On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of any complication included age, ASA class, M stage, and approach; however, CN did not increase the risk of complication compared with MIS, whereas PO nearly doubled the risk of complication (OR = 1.98, p = 0.0083). The only significant predictor of mortality on multivariable analysis was age (HR = 1.09, p = 0.0002)-approach was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

PO confers the greatest risk of suffering any complication. Surgical approach was not associated with death. Results of our study challenge the notion that conversion is associated with the worst perioperative outcomes and an MIS approach should be considered in patients with LACC.