T4 colorectal cancer: is laparoscopic resection contraindicated?

Has the open surgical approach in colorectal cancer really become uncommon?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world. Surgery is mandatory to treat patients with colorectal cancer. Can colorectal cancer be treated in laparoscopy? Scientific literature has validated the oncological quality of laparoscopic approach for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized non-inferiority trials with good remote control have answered positively to this long-debated question. Early as 1994, first publications demonstrated technical feasibility and compliance with oncological imperatives and, as far as short-term outcomes are concerned, there is no difference in terms of mortality and post-operative morbidity between open and minimally invasive surgical approaches, but only longer operating times at the beginning of the experience. Subsequently, from 2007 onwards, long-term results were published that demonstrated the absence of a significant difference regarding overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, local and distant recurrence rates between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this editorial, we aim to summarize the clinical and technical aspects which, even today, make the use of open surgery relevant and necessary in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series

BACKGROUND

Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated.

RESULTS

One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%.

CONCLUSION

Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Short term results in a population based study indicate advantage for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery versus open

The aim of this study was to compare LAP with OPEN regarding short-term mortality, morbidity and completeness of the cancer resection for colon cancer in a routine health care setting using population based register data. All 13,683 patients who were diagnosed 2012-2018 and underwent elective surgery for right-sided or sigmoid colon cancer were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the National Patient Registry. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, reoperation, readmission and positive resection margin (R1). Weighted and unweighted multi regression analyses were performed. There were no difference in 30-day mortality: LAP (0.9%) and OPEN (1.3%) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62-1.29, P = 0.545). The weighted analyses showed an increased 90-day mortality following OPEN, P < 0.001. Re-operations and re-admission were more frequent after OPEN and length of hospital stay was 2.9 days shorter following LAP (P < 0.001). R1 resections were significantly more common in the OPEN group in the unweighted and weighted analysis with P = 0.004 and P < 0.001 respectively. Therefore, the favourable short-term outcomes following elective LAP versus OPEN resection for colon cancer in routine health care indicate an advantage of laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality

For T4 rectal tumours and local recurrences (LR) of rectal cancer, a radical resection beyond TME, sometimes by multi-visceral resection, is important to obtain safe margins and improve survival. The use of the laparoscopic approach (LA) for these cases is still controversial and associated with a high rate of conversion. However, robotic surgery might offer some advantages that can overcome some of the limitations of LA. Therefore, we aimed to analyse the postoperative outcomes and medium-term oncological results of robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (pathological T4) and LR. A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who had undergone robotic rectal resection in a single institution over an 11-year period, and had a T4 tumour confirmed in the pathological report. Primary endpoint was to analyse postoperative complications (30-day) and the rate of conversion. Secondary endpoints include pathological assessment of the quality of the specimen, local recurrence and survival [2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)]. A total of 41 patients were analysed, including a total of 24 patients (60%) that required a multivisceral resection. The median distance from the tumour to the anorectal junction was 7 (4-12) cm. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 2 cases (5%). The overall morbidity rate was 78% (n = 32), with 37% of major complications, most of them urinary (n = 7). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13 (7-27) days. The 30-day mortality rate was 7% (n = 3). An R0 resection was achieved in 85.4% of the cases (n = 35) due to 6 cases of the positive circumferential resection margin. 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for the T4 tumours were 72% and 85%, respectively. There were 8 cases of local recurrence (22.2%); 6 of them met the selection criteria for salvage surgery. Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer and multi-visceral resections is safe and feasible, with a low rate of conversion and an acceptable rate of postoperative morbidity in this subgroup of patients. Oncological results have shown to be comparable with the laparoscopic series published, preserving a good quality of the resected specimen. However, comparative studies and a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm the oncologic findings and to support the general adoption of the robotic system for these complex interventions.

Laparoscopic and robotic multivisceral resection in colorectal cancer: A case series and systematic review

PURPOSE

Multivisceral resection (MVR) with open approach is the standard surgical treatment for locally advanced colorectal cancer. However, the medical literature concerning the practice of minimally invasive MVR in order to reduce postoperative complications and hospital stay has been growing exponentially over the last years. The present study aimed to examine our experience and to provide a systematic review about the results and complications of minimally invasive MVR.

METHODS

Data of patients that underwent minimally invasive MVR for locally advanced colorectal cancer from 2015 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The literature was searched for studies concerning minimally invasive MVR for colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 39 laparoscopic MVR were performed in our department. Complications occurred in 14 patients (35.9%) with major complications in five patients (18.82%) according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Conversion was required in one case (2.56%) with subsequent mortality (2.56%). Pathologic adjacent organs or structures invasion was observed in 30 patients (76.9%) and positive resection margin occurred in two cases (5.2%). Twenty-two studies including 1055 patients were identified after literature search. In these studies, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery were performed in 90.15% and 9.85% of the patients, respectively. R0 resection was established in 95% of cases, conversion rate varied between 0% and 41.7%, and postoperative mortality ranged between 0% and 7.7% in the included articles.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approach may be a safe option for patients requiring MVR for locally advanced colorectal cancer, with equivalent oncological results and could result in better early postoperative outcomes to open approach. However, further studies on this topic are needed to confirm the results of the current study.

Exploration of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery for clinical T4 colorectal cancer compared with open surgery: A matched-pair analysis

The indications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for T4 colorectal cancer are controversial because the advantages of MIS are unclear. Therefore, we compared overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoint, and short-term outcome, alteration in perioperative laboratory data, and the interval of postoperative chemotherapy from operation as secondary endpoints, between MIS and open surgery (OPEN) using a matched-pair analysis. We explored the advantages of MIS for T4 colorectal cancer. In this retrospective single-institution study, we included 125 patients with clinical T4 colorectal cancer who underwent curative-intent surgery of the primary tumor between October 2010 and September 2019. Conversion cases were excluded. MIS patients were matched to OPEN patients (ratio of 1:2) according to tumor location, clinical T stage, and preoperative treatment. We identified 25 and 50 patients who underwent OPEN and MIS, respectively, including 31 with distant metastasis. Both groups had similar background characteristics. The rate of major morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) was comparable between the 2 groups (P = .597), and there was no mortality in either group. MIS tended to result in shorter postoperative hospitalization than OPEN (P = .073). Perioperative alterations in laboratory data revealed that MIS suppressed surgical invasiveness better compared to OPEN. Postoperative chemotherapy, especially for patients with distant metastasis who underwent primary tumor resection, tended to be started earlier in the MIS group than in the OPEN group (P = .075). OS and RFS were comparable between the 2 groups (P = .996 and .870, respectively). In the multivariate analyses, MIS was not a significant prognostic factor for poor OS and RFS. MIS was surgically safe and showed similar oncological outcomes to OPEN-with the potential of reduced invasiveness and enhanced recovery from surgery. Therefore, patients undergoing MIS might receive subsequent postoperative treatments earlier.

Colorectal cancer in an Eastern Caribbean nation: are we missing an opportunity for secondary prevention?

Objective.

To establish whether there was any difference in disease stage in patients with screening-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) in a Caribbean country.

Methods.

The mode of presentation (elective vs. emergent), method of diagnosis (screening vs. symptomatic), and disease stage were retrospectively compared in all consecutive patients who had resections for CRC over a five-year period. Early CRC was defined as disease that could be completely resected with no involvement of adjacent organs, lymph nodes, or distant sites. Locally advanced CRC was disease that involved contiguous organs without distant metastases that was still amenable to curative resection.

Results.

There were 97 patients at a mean age of 64.9 ± 12.2 years treated for CRC, and only 21 (21.6%) had their diagnoses made through screening. Significantly more screening-detected lesions were early-stage CRCs (21.7% vs. 9.3%; p < 0.001). At the time of diagnosis, patients who did not have screening-detected lesions had a greater proportion of locally advanced (42.3% vs. 0) and metastatic (26.8% vs. 0) CRC. Those who did not have screening-detected lesions had a greater incidence of emergency presentations at diagnosis (26.8% vs. 0).

Conclusions.

The incidence of screening-detected CRC in this Caribbean nation was low. Consequently, most patients presented with locally advanced or metastatic CRC, for which there is less opportunity to achieve a cure. Significantly more screening-detected lesions were early-stage CRCs. It is time for policymakers to develop a national CRC screening program.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE).

RESULTS

Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open resection in locally advanced rectal cancers: a propensity matched analysis of oncological and short-term outcomes

AIM

The aim was to compare oncological and short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced rectal cancers.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis conducted in a high volume tertiary centre. Matching was carried out for nine variables, including preoperative factors, neoadjuvant treatment and sphincter preservation.

RESULTS

Both the open and laparoscopic surgery arms had 239 patients each. The distributions of pretreatment MRI T3, T4, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive tumours, neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation and sphincter preservation were 80.3%, 13.6%, 50%, 89% and 56.4% respectively. The mean number of nodes harvested (12.9 vs. 12.7, P = 0.716), pathological CRM positivity (6.3% in open vs. 5.4% in laparoscopic, P = 0.697) and distal resection margins were similar. The mean blood loss was higher in open surgeries (910 ml vs. 349 ml, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks and Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-4 complications were higher in the open arm than in the laparoscopy arm (5.9% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.024, and 12.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.015 respectively). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy arm (7 vs. 6, P = 0.015). In CRM positive and threatened cases, the measured outcomes were similar between the two groups except for blood loss which was significantly higher in the open surgery (872 vs. 379, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In high volume centres, in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons, laparoscopic rectal surgery is oncologically safe in locally advanced rectal cancers and has lesser morbidity and shorter hospital stay than open surgery. In CRM positive and threatened cases the laparoscopic surgery showed less blood loss compared to open surgery, while other outcome measures were similar to open surgery.

Identification of patient subgroups with unfavorable long-term outcomes associated with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0404)

BACKGROUND

Previously, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (JCOG0404) for stage II/III colon cancer patients and reported that the long-term survival after open surgery (OP) and laparoscopic surgery (LAP) were almost identical; however, JCOG0404 suggested that survival of patients after LAP with tumors located in the rectosigmoid colon, cT4 or cN2 tumors, and high body mass index (BMI) might be unfavorable.

AIM

To identify the patient subgroups associated with poor long-term survival in the LAP arm compared with the OP arm.

METHODS

Patients aged 20-75, clinical T3 or deeper lesion without involvement of other organs, clinical N0-2 and M0 were included. The patients with pathological stage IV and R2 resection were excluded from the current analysis. In each subgroup, the hazard ratio for LAP (vs. OP) in overall survival (OS) from surgery was estimated using a multivariable Cox regression model adjusted for the clinical and pathological factors.

RESULTS

In total, 1025 patients (OP, 511 and LAP, 514) were included in the current analysis. Adjusted hazards ratios for OS of patients with high BMI (>25 kg/m2), pT4, and pN2 in LAP were 3.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-9.19), 1.33 (0.73-2.41), and 1.74 (0.76-3.97), respectively. In contrast, that of rectosigmoid colon tumors was 0.98 (0.46-2.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Although LAP is an acceptable optional treatment for stage II/III colon cancer, the present subgroup analysis suggests that high BMI (>25 kg/m2), pT4, and pN2 except for RS were factors associated with unfavorable long-term outcomes of LAP in patients with colon cancer who underwent curative resection. (JCOG 0404: NCT00147134/UMIN-CTR: C000000105.).

A Minimally Invasive Pelvic Multivisceral Resection Approach for Locally Advanced Primary Colorectal Cancers: A Single-Institution Experience

Background: The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in locally advanced colorectal cancers (CRCs) suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures remains controversial. The aim of this study is to verify the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive multivisceral resection (MVR) surgery for locally advanced CRCs compared with conventional open surgery. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected data from patients who underwent MVR for locally advanced CRCs from 2007 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with preoperative clinically suspected T4b stage cancers were enrolled in the study. Results: There were 30 and 19 patients in the MIS and open surgery groups, respectively. Seven patients in the MIS group required conversion, and the most common reason for conversion was ureter and bladder invasion. Tumor sizes were significantly larger in the open group (5.46 cm versus 7.48 cm, P = .010), whereas the MIS group included more patients with rectal cancers (56.7% versus 21%, P = .021). No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay. Curative (R0) resection was achieved in all patients, and the median follow-up period was 23 months. The 3-year overall survival in the MIS group was 73.6% and 77.9% in the open group (P = .445), and the 3-year total disease-free survival (DFS) was 59.2% and 51.4%, respectively (P = .695). Three-year local DFS was 83.3% for the MIS group, and 51.4% for the open group (P = .120). Conclusion: MIS for primary T4b CRCs without urinary tract invasion is safe and feasible.

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of open and minimally invasive pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pelvic exenterations for primary locally advanced rectal cancers with invasion of the urogenital organs (central and anterior disease) between August 2013 and September 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were categorized as undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and these groups were compared for perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival (overall, recurrence-free and local relapse-free survival). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the independent influence of approach of surgery and cancer features on recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Of the 158 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration, 97 (61.4 per cent) had open exenterations and 61 (38.6 per cent) patients had an MIS resection (44 patients (72 per cent) using laparoscopy and 17 (28 per cent) using robotic surgery). There were 96 (60.8 per cent) total pelvic exenterations and 62 (39.2 per cent) posterior pelvic exenterations. MIS exenterations had significantly longer operative times (MIS versus open: 640 mins versus 450 mins; P < 0.001) but reduced blood loss (MIS versus open: 900 ml versus 1600 ml; P < 0.001) and abdominal wound infections (MIS versus open: 8.2 versus 17.5 per cent; P = 0.020) without a difference in hospital stay (MIS versus open: 11 versus 12 days; P = 0.620). R0 resection rates and involvement of circumferential resection margins were similar (MIS versus open: 88.5 versus 91.8 per cent, P = 0.490 and 13.1 versus 8.2 per cent, P = 0.342 respectively). At a median follow-up of 29 months, there were no differences in 3-year overall survival (MIS versus open: 79.4 versus 60.2 per cent; P = 0.251), RFS (MIS versus open: 51.9 versus 47.8 per cent; P = 0.922) or local relapse-free survival (MIS versus open: 89.7 versus 75.2 per cent; P = 0.491. On multivariable analysis, approach to surgery had no bearing on RFS, and only known distant metastasis, aggressive histology and inadequate response to neoadjuvant radiation (pathological tumour regression grade greater than 3) predicted worse RFS.

CONCLUSION

MIS exenterations documented longer procedures but resulted in less blood loss and fewer wound infections compared with open surgeries. In the setting of an experienced centre, the hospital stay, R0 resection rates and oncological outcomes at 3 years were similar to those of open exenterations.

Clinical yield of screening colonoscopies in Jamaica

There is still no organised national screening programme for colorectal cancer in Jamaica. We sought to evaluate the detection of colorectal cancer precursor lesions in patients who underwent opportunistic screening over three years. Patients with colorectal polyps were selected for further study. In 431 procedures, there were 84 (19.5%) patients with colorectal polyps identified at screening colonoscopy, which gave a 19.5% sensitivity to identify patients with polyps at risk of developing colorectal cancer, 9.5% being <50 years of age. At the time of examination, 16.7% had already developed invasive adenocarcinoma. We conclude that it is time for policy makers to develop a national colorectal cancer screening programme to diagnose patients early and improve their therapeutic outcomes.

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Effect of endoscopic surgical skill qualification system for laparoscopic multivisceral resection: Japanese multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic multivisceral resection (Lap-MVR) has been reported by several experienced high-volume centers. The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) was established in Japan to improve the skill of laparoscopic surgeons and further develop surgical teams. We examined the safety and feasibility of Lap-MVR in general hospitals, and evaluated the effects of the Japanese ESSQS for this approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 131 patients who underwent MVR between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were divided into the laparoscopic surgery group (LAC group, n = 98) and the open surgery group (OPEN group, n = 33). The clinicopathological and surgical features were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the OPEN group, BMI was significantly higher (21.9 vs 19.3 kg/m², p = 0.012) and blood loss was lower (55 vs 380 ml, p < 0.001) in the LAC group. Operation time, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay were similar between the groups. ESSQS-qualified surgeons tended to select the laparoscopic approach for MVR (p < 0.001). In the LAC group, ESSQS-qualified surgeons had superior results to those without ESSQS qualifications in terms of blood loss (63 vs 137 ml, p = 0.042) and higher R0 resection rate (0% vs 2.0%, p = 0.040), despite having more cases of locally advanced tumor. In addition, there were no conversions to open surgery among ESSQS-qualified surgeons, and three conversions among surgeons without ESSQS qualifications (0% vs 15.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed blood loss (odds ratio 1.821; 95% CI 1.324-7.654; p = 0.010) as an independent predictor of postoperative complications. Laparoscopic approach was not a predictive factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The present multicenter study confirmed the feasibility and safety of Lap-MVR even in general hospitals, and revealed superior results for ESSQS-qualified surgeons.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND

The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC.

METHODS

A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION(S)

Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for clinical T4 (cT4) rectal cancer is unknown. This study was conducted to clarify short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

In our retrospective cohort study, we enrolled patients who underwent robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge between 2011 and 2018. The short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of a total of 122 eligible patients, 70 (57%) had cT4a tumors and 52 (43%) had cT4b tumors. Thirty-five patients (29%) had distant metastasis and 21 (17%) underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Thirty-four patients (28%) underwent combined resection of adjacent organs and 43 (35%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection. The median operative time was 288 min and the median blood loss was 11 ml. No patients required conversion to open surgery. The incidences of postoperative complications of grades II, III, and IV or more according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were 17.2%, 3.5%, and 0%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (60%) had pathological T4 tumors, and the incidence of positive resection margins was 4.9%. The median follow-up time was 42.9 months. The 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and cumulative local recurrence rates were 87.5%, 70.4%, and 4.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer were favorable. Robotic surgery is considered to be a useful approach for cT4 rectal cancer.

Surgical resection of T4 colon cancers: an NCDB propensity score-matched analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers.

Robotic-assisted resection for beyond TME rectal cancer: a novel classification and analysis from a specialized center

Locally advanced rectal cancer often requires an extended resection beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (bTME) to obtain clear resection margins. We classified three types of bTME rectal cancer following local disease diffusion: radial (adjacent pelvic organs), lateral (pelvic lateral lymph nodes) and longitudinal (below 3.5 cm from the anal verge, submitted to intersphincteric resection). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the application of robotic surgery to the three types of bTME regarding the short and long-term oncological outcomes. Secondary aim was to identify survival prognostic factors for bTME rectal cancers. A total of 137 patients who underwent robotic-assisted bTME procedures between 2008 and 2018 were extracted from a prospectively collected database. Patient-related, operative and pathological factors were assessed. Morbidity was moderately high with 66% of patients reporting postoperative complications. Median follow up was 47 months (IQR, 31.5-66.5). Local recurrence rate was 15.3% with a statistical difference between the three types of bTME (p = 0.041). Disease progression/distant metastasis rate was 33.6%. Overall survival was significantly different (p = 0.023) with 1- and 3-years rates of: 77.8% and 55.0% (radial; n = 19); 96.6% and 84.8% (lateral; n = 30); 97.7% and 86.9% (longitudinal; n = 88). No statistical difference was observed for disease-free survival (p = 0.897). Local recurrence-free survival was significantly different between the groups (p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis showed that (y)pT (p = 0.028; HR (95% CI) 5.133 (1.192-22.097)), (y)pN (p = 0.014; HR (95% CI) 2.835 (1.240-6.482)) and type of bTME were associated to OS whilst (y)pT (p = 0.072) and type of bTME were not associated to LRFS.

Minimally invasive surgery for T4 colon cancer is associated with better outcomes compared to open surgery in the National Cancer Database

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is favored for T1-T3 colon cancer resection due to improved short and long-term outcomes. Recommendations regarding T4 cancers remain controversial due to a paucity of clinical trials or large datasets assessing outcomes. We aim to compare outcomes for pT4 colon cancer patients treated with MIS or open surgery (OS) in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). We analyzed adults having MIS or OS for stage II or III pT4 colon cancers between 2010 and 2014 using propensity-score matching, Cox and logistic regression modeling. Of 21 998 T4 patients, 7532 (34.2%) underwent MIS, 14 466 (65.8%) OS and 22.3% were MIS converted to OS. After propensity score matching, 5624 patients in each cohort were included. MIS was associated with improved postoperative mortality (3.4 vs. 7.2%, p > .001), surgical margins, optimal lymph node harvest, adjuvant chemotherapy use and 5-year survival (46% vs. 41%, P < .001). MIS was associated with improved short and long term outcomes for T4 colon cancers compared to OS on multivariate analysis. Based on these findings, well selected pT4 colon cancers can be considered appropriate for MIS however, prospective clinical trials are needed to better define the role of MIS in T4b colon cancer.

Advanced colonic cancer with clinically suspected bladder invasion: Outcomes and prognosis from a multicentric study of 117 patients from the FRENCH research group

BACKGROUND

Bladder invasion by colon cancer is rare; however, its management is still controversial. Our objective was to report outcomes and identify risk factors for local recurrence in colon cancer with clinically suspected bladder invasion.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in 23 centers in France. All patients who underwent colon surgery with bladder resection (2010-2017) were included. Metastatic and recurrent colon cancers were excluded.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen patients (men = 73) were included. Partial cystectomy occurred in 108 patients (92.3%), with a total cystectomy occurring in 9 patients (7.7%). Neoadjuvant treatment was given to 31 patients (26.5%). Major morbidity was 20.5%. R0 resection rates were 87.2%. Histologically confirmed bladder invasion was present in 47%. Thirty-four patients were pN+, while 60 patients (51.3%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Mean follow-up was 33.8 months. Three-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 82.9% and 59.5%. Rates of local recurrence and distant recurrence were 14.5% and 18.8%, respectively; the local recurrences (11/17; 65%) were in the bladder, while 4 of these patients had a bladder recurrence despite not having histologically confirmed bladder invasion at the index surgery. The rate of bladder recurrence after histologic bladder invasion was 13% (7/55), while the rate of bladder recurrence without primary bladder invasion was 7% (4/62) (P = .343). Neoadjuvant therapy, type of cystectomy, and adjuvant therapy did not influence local recurrence (P > .445 each). R1 bladder resections, when compared with a R0 bladder resections, were associated with an increased rate of local recurrence (63% vs 10%; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Clinically suspected bladder invasion increases local recurrence even in the absence of histologically confirmed bladder invasion. Only complete resections with R0 margins decrease local recurrence. Careful, detailed postoperative surveillance is required, even without pathologic bladder invasion.

Robotic multivisceral pelvic resection: experience from an exenteration unit

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration remains a viable and effective treatment option for the management of locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy. The aim of this study was to present an early experience of robotic multivisceral resection of pelvic malignancy, and to compare this experience with similar series through a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients who had robotic-assisted multi-visceral resection for pelvic malignancy at a single Colorectal Surgical unit based between two tertiary academic hospitals. Primary outcomes observed included operation type, operation time, perioperative complications, and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included R0 resection status, lymph node harvest, and rate of recurrence at clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Eight cases of robotic multivisceral resection were performed for primary locally advanced pelvic malignancy involving a rectal resection as part of their operative management. The median age of patients undergoing resection was 56 years (range 29-83 years). The male:female ratio was 6:2. The mean total operating time was 8.3 h (range 6-10 h). Perioperative blood transfusion requirements were minimal. Mean hospital length of stay was 15 days (range 7-26 days). No patients experienced any serious postoperative morbidity or mortality. All patients had clear margins on histological assessment and no patients have recurrence at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic multivisceral resection for malignant disease of the pelvis is a safe and feasible minimally invasive approach in highly selected cases.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced or Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer is often used to secure negative resection margins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic PE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical records of 24 patients (9, open; 15, laparoscopic) who underwent total or posterior PE for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer between July 2012 and April 2016 at Osaka National Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Operative factors were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The R0 resection rate was 100% in the laparoscopic group and 89% in the open group. The operative time and the incidence of postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The laparoscopic group showed less intraoperative blood loss (P=0.019), a lower C-reactive protein elevation on postoperative day 7 (P=0.025), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P=0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PE is a safe and feasible procedure to reduce postoperative stress.

Circumferential Resection Margin After Laparoscopic and Open Rectal Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest better oncological results after open versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. The external validity of these results has not been tested on a nationwide basis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer with special emphasis on surgical approach.

DESIGN

This database study was based on the Danish nationwide colorectal cancer database. To identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin, we performed uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. To assess the role of surgical approach, a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at public hospitals across Denmark.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective rectal resection from October 2009 through December 2013 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

Included in the final analyses were 2721 cases (745 operated on by an open approach; 1976 by laparoscopy). On direct comparison, positive circumferential resection margin occurred more often after open resection (6.3% vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). After multivariate analyses, tumors located low in the rectum, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, increasing T and N stage, tumor fixated in the pelvis, and dissection in the muscularis plane increased the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. In the propensity score-matched sample (541 exact matched pairs), the laparoscopic approach did not influence the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5; p = 0.77).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data, and thereby contained possible selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this nationwide database study, and after multivariate and propensity score-matched analyses, there was no increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin after laparoscopic vs open rectal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996. MARGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESECCIÓN RECTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA Y ABIERTA: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN A NIVEL NACIONAL: Estudios recientes sugieren mejores resultados oncológicos después de la resección rectal abierta versus laparoscópica. La validez de estos resultados no se ha probado a nivel nacional.

OBJETIVO

Identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo en pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto con especial énfasis en el abordaje quirúrgico. DISEÑO:: Estudio de la base de datos nacional de Dinamarca de cáncer colorrectal. Para identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo, realizamos análisis de regresión logística uni y multivariable. Para evaluar el papel del abordaje quirúrgico, se realizó un análisis emparejado de puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

Hospitales públicos en toda Dinamarca.

PACIENTES

Pacientes sometidos a resección rectal electiva en el período comprendido entre octubre de 2009 y diciembre de 2013.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS

Riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

2721 casos (745 operados por abordaje abierto; 1976 por laparoscopia) se incluyeron en el análisis final. En la comparación directa, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo ocurrió más a frecuentemente, después de la resección abierta (6.3 vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). Posterior a los análisis multivariados, tumores localizados en el recto bajo, quimioterapia con radioterapia neoadyuvante, incremento de etapas T y la N, tumor fijo en pelvis y la disección en el plano muscular, aumentaron el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. En la muestra emparejada del puntaje de propensión (541 pares coincidentes exactos), el abordaje laparoscópico no influyó en el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo (razón de probabilidades (IC 95%) 0.9 (0.6-1.5); p = 0.77).

LIMITACIONES

Revisión retrospectiva de los datos recopilados prospectivamente y por lo tanto, posible sesgo de selección.

CONCLUSIONES

El estudio de la base de datos a nivel nacional y después de los análisis emparejados multivariados y de puntuación de propensión, no hubo un mayor riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo después de la resección laparoscópica versus resección abierta. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996.

Oncological Outcomes and Quality of Life After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgery for rectal cancer has been completely revolutionized thanks to the adoption of new technologies and up-to-date surgical procedures that have been applied to the traditional milestone represented by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME).

The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, with new technologies increased the patients’ life expectancies; nevertheless, they have placed the surgeon in front of newer issues, represented by both oncological outcomes and the patients’ need of a less destructive surgery and improved quality of life.

In this review we will go through laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME surgery, to show how the correct choice of the most appropriate technique, together with a deep knowledge of oncological principles and pelvic anatomy, is crucial to pursue an optimal cancer treatment. Novel technologies might also help to decrease the patients’ fear of surgery and address important issues such as cosmesis and improved preservation of postoperative functionality.

The Short- and Long-Term Feasibility of Laparoscopic Surgery in Colon Cancer Patients with Bulky Tumors

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery for colon cancer, randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic approaches have equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. However, the feasibility of laparoscopy for removal of bulky tumors has not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to determine the short- and long-term feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for bulky (> 8 cm) colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients with bulky tumors (defined as greater than 8 cm in diameter) underwent curative resection from July 2004 to July 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 48) and open (n = 32) resection.

RESULTS

Compared to open, the operative time was significantly longer (213 vs. 148 min, p < 0.001), return of bowel function quicker (time to oral intake; 2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and length of stay shorter (10 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Five-year cancer-specific and relapse-free survival was similar with no patients developing local recurrence in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of colon cancers greater than 8 cm in diameter is feasible and oncologically safe with better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared to open surgery.

Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of a Prospective Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) at an NCI designated cancer center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of laparoscopic TME could not be established, but the robotic-assisted approach may hold some promise, with improved visualization and ergonomics for pelvic dissection. Oncological outcome data is presently lacking.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between April 2009 and April 2016 via a robotic approach were identified from a prospective single-institution database. The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free survival and overall survival was performed for all patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients underwent robotic proctectomy during the study period. Robotic surgery was performed initially by 1 surgeon with 3 additional surgeons progressively transitioning from open to robotic during the study period with annual increase in the total number of cases performed robotically. Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins. One hundred eighty-six patients had TME quality assessed, and only 1 patient (0.5%) had an incomplete TME. Eighty-three patients were followed up for a minimum of 3 years, with a local recurrence rate of 2.4%, and a distant recurrence rate of 16.9%. Five-year disease-free survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 82%, and 5-year overall survival was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer can be performed with good short and medium term oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Effect of cancer characteristics and oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection converted to open surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection is an oncologically safe procedure equivalent to open resection,the effects of conversion of a laparoscopic approach to an open approach remain unclear.This study evaluated the cancer characteristic and oncological outcomes associated with conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection to open surgery.

METHOD

We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included the literature published until 2018 that examined the impact of laparoscopic conversion to open colorectal resection. Only randomized control trials and prospective studies were included. Each study was reviewed and the data were extracted. Fixed-effects methods were used to combine data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies with 5427 patients were included. Of these, 4672 patients underwent complete laparoscopic resection with no conversion (LAP group), whereas 755 underwent conversion to an open resection (CONV group). The meta-analysis showedsignificant differences between the LAP group and converted (CONV) group with respect to neoadjuvant therapy (P = .002), location of the rectal cancer (P = .01), and recurrence (P = .01). However, no difference in local recurrence (P = .17) was noted between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of laparoscopic to open colorectal cancer resection is influenced by tumor characteristics. Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a worse oncological outcome.

Laparoscopic vs open resection of pT4 colon cancer: a propensity score analysis of 94 patients

AIM

Our aim was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomy in T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed oncological outcomes of 94 patients who underwent surgery between December 2010 and December 2016 for pT4 colon cancer, with propensity score matching. All patients were treated with curative intent, by either laparoscopic or open en bloc resection.

RESULTS

The conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17.0%. Blood loss, time to flatus and postoperative hospitalization were significantly less in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days did not significantly differ between the two groups. R0 resection rates and lymph node harvests were similar between the two groups. At 5 years, laparoscopic outcomes were not inferior to open outcomes (overall survival 56.8% vs 50.2%, P = 0.250; disease-free survival 59.7% vs 41.7%, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is safe and feasible for pathologically confirmed T4 colon cancer. It results in a faster postoperative recovery.

Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival following surgery for T4 colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications (POCs) after the resection of locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) may influence adjuvant treatment timing, outcomes, and survival. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of POCs on long-term outcomes in patients surgically treated for T4 CRC.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent the resection of T4 CRC at a single centre from 2004 to 2013 were retrospectively analysed from a prospectively maintained database. POCs were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients who developed POCs were compared with those who did not in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The study population comprised 106 patients, including 79 (74.5%) with synchronous distant metastases. Overall, 46 patients (43%) developed at least one POC during the hospital stay, and of those patients, 9 (20%) had severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III). POCs were not associated with OS (65% with POCs vs. 69% without POCs; p = 0.72) or RFS (58% with POCs vs. 70% without POCs; p = 0.37). Similarly, POCs did not affect OS or RFS in patients who had synchronous metastases at diagnosis compared with those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

POCs do not affect the oncological course of patients subjected to the resection of T4 CRC, even in cases of synchronous metastases.

Clinical Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery for T4 Colon Cancer Compared with Open Surgery: A Single Center's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer remains controversial according to many colorectal cancer guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection by laparoscopy versus open surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection either by laparoscopy or by open surgery between January 2012 and January 2017 were included and used to perform a retrospective cohort analysis. Demographics, patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between two groups. Multivariate analyses were used to define prognostic factors of overall survival.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Intraoperative blood loss (127.3 versus 226.1 mL, P = .001) and hospital stay (11.6 versus 14.8 days, P = .001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group. Operative time, bowel movement, time to soft diet, and lymph nodes harvested did not significantly differ between the two groups. R0 resection achieved 100% in both the groups. Similarly, the overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate in stage II and stage III disease showed no significant differences. Multivariate analyses showed that intraoperative blood loss was a significantly independent factor related to a poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that laparoscopy for T4 colon cancer can be safely performed with superior short-term outcomes, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter time of hospital stay compared with open surgery, and with similar long-term oncological outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic procedure could be a viable option in selected patients.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in pT4 colon cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has achieved improved short-term benefits and better long-term oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. However, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic surgery is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Published studies from 2003 to 2018 comparing oncological outcomes following laparoscopic and open surgery for pT4 colon cancer were systematically searched. Data on conversion rate, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity and mortality, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were subjected to meta-analysis using fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 2396 cases (1250 laparoscopic and 1146 open). There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.007; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.935-1.085; P = 0.850], number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 0.004; 95% CI = -0.139 to 0.148; P = 0.951), mortality (RR = 0.509; 95% CI = 0.176-1.470; P = 0.212), and 3-year OS (RR = 1.056; 95% CI = 0.939-1.188; P = 0.360), 5-year OS (RR = 1.003; 95% CI = 0.883-1.139; P = 0.966), 3-year DFS (RR = 1.032; 95% CI = 0.903-1.179; P = 0.642), and 5-year DFS (RR = 0.995; 95% CI = 0.868-1.140; P = 0.973) between the groups. The rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures was 10.7% (95% CI = 0.090-0.124). There was a significant difference in incidence of complications within 30 postoperative days between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR = 0.703; 95% CI = 0.564-0.876; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in pT4 colon cancer, oncological outcomes are similar, and more importantly, there are fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of clinical T4b tumours of distal sigmoid and rectum: initial results

BACKGROUND

Radical resection by multivisceral resection of colorectal T4 tumours is important to reduce local recurrence and improve survival. Oncological safety of laparoscopic resection of T4 tumours is controversial. However, robot-assisted resections might have advantages, such as 3D view and greater range of motion of instruments. The aim of this study is to evaluate the initial results of robot-assisted resection of T4 rectal and distal sigmoid tumours.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of a prospectively kept database of all robot-assisted rectal and sigmoid resections between 2012 and 2017. Patients who underwent a multivisceral resection for tumours appearing as T4 cancer during surgery were included. Rectal and sigmoid resections are routinely performed with the DaVinci robot, unless an indication for intra-operative radiotherapy exists.

RESULTS

28 patients with suspected T4 rectal or sigmoid cancer were included. Most patients (78%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 19), short course radiotherapy with long waiting interval (n = 2) or chemotherapy (n = 1). En bloc resection was performed with the complete or part of the invaded organ (prostate, vesicles, bladder, abdominal wall, presacral fascia, vagina, uterus, adnex). In 3 patients (11%), the procedure was converted to laparotomy. Twenty-four R0-resections were performed (86%) and four R1-resections (14%). Median length of surgery was 274 min (IQR 222-354). Median length of stay was 6 days (IQR 5-11). Twelve patients (43%) had postoperative complications: eight (29%) minor complications and four (14%) major complications. There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopy seems to be a feasible option for the resection of clinical T4 cancer of the distal sigmoid and rectum in selected cases. Radical resections can be achieved in the majority of cases. Therefore, T4 tumours should not be regarded as a strict contraindication for robot-assisted surgery.

Safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced left colon cancer

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection (S-MVR) for locally advanced left colon cancer. S-MVR is a challenging technique and to the best of our knowledge this is the first report of S-MVR for left colon cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs. A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced left colon cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs from January 2008 to December 2014. Short-term and long-term outcomes were analyzed between groups of patients who underwent S-MVR and multi-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection (M-MVR) retrospectively. A total of 14 patients underwent S-MVR and 15 patients underwent M-MVR. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of operative factors and postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the S-MVR group compared with the M-MVR group (P=0.048). Three-year overall survival was 61.9% in the S-MVR group (n=14). In patients with stage II (P=0.600) and III (P=0714) disease the three-year overall and disease-free survival was 81.8 and 58.3% in the S-MVR group and 80.0 and 70% in the M-MVR groups over a median follow-up of 34 months. In conclusion, S-MVR for locally advanced left colon cancer is safe and feasible in selected patients.

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy as an Oncologically safe alternative for patients with stage T4 Colon Cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study

Background

It is still controversial whether laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

Methods

Data of eligible patients with colon cancer in our institution from March 2004 to September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were followed up to September 2016. Propensity score matching was performed to control the bias.

Results

Two hundred and forty two patients were selected by propensity score matching, with 121 patients in the LAC group and 121 in the OC group. Mean operating time and rate of intraoperative blood transfusion were similar between two groups. In LAC group, shorter time to first flatus and first liquid intake were observed in patients with pT4b stage disease, but not for patients with pT4a stage disease. Less blood loss and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay were examined in LAC group, including pT4a and pT4b stages. Conversion was required in 9.1% (11 out of 121) cases. DFS and OS were similar between LAC and OC groups. The 5-year DFS rate was 64.2% for pT4a stage and 35.5% for pT4b stage in LAC group, and 62.9% and 33.7% in OC group for pT4a (p = 0.374) and pT4b (p = 0.385) stage respectively. For 5-year OS rates, two groups did not differ in pT4a stage (LAC 69.2% vs. OC 66.0%, p = 0.151) and pT4b stage (LAC 37.5% vs. OC 38.1%, p = 0.510).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colectomy appears to be safe for selected patients with pT4 colon cancer in centres with expertise in minimally invasive surgery.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Multivisceral Resection for Clinically Suspected T4 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has become widespread recently. However, the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for primary advanced colorectal cancer need extensive investigation. We analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic multivisceral resection for primary colon cancer with suspected invasion of other organs at a single institution.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2014, 118 patients underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for primary colon cancer invading or adhering to adjacent organs or structures; their short- and long-term outcomes were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median operating time was 254 min (range 130-1051 min), and median blood loss was 48 ml (range 0-2777 ml). The overall conversion rate was 6.8%. The postoperative complication rate was 17.8%. The number of patients with R0 and R1 resection was 112 (94.9%) and 6 (5.1%), respectively. At a median follow-up period of 32 months (range 0-157 months), the local recurrence rate in patients who underwent R0 resection was 1.8%, while for R1 resection it was 66.7%. In multivariate analysis, R1 resection and LN metastases were found to be predictors of poor prognosis. The cancer-specific 5-year survival was 87% when R0 resection was achieved; within these, the 5-year survival rates for patients with stages II, III, and IV disease were 94, 81, and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic en bloc multivisceral resection for clinically suspected T4 colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure for precisely selected patients, attaining satisfactory oncological outcomes when R0 resection is achieved.

Laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced T4 colon cancer: the long-term outcomes and prognostic factors

Purpose

For locally advanced pathological T4 (pT4) colon cancer, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic procedures remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to assess short-term and long-term outcomes and to identify the prognostic factors in laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

Methods

The study group included 130 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection for pT4 colon and rectosigmoid cancer from January 2004 through December 2012. The short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and prognostic factors in pT4 colon cancer were analyzed.

Results

The median operative time was 205 min, with a median blood loss of 10 ml. The conversion rate was 3.8%, and 13 patients (10.0%) had postoperative complications. The radial resection margin was positive in 1 patient (0.8%). The median follow-up time was 73 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 77.2 and 63.5%, respectively. On a multivariate analysis, a male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 3.09, p < 0.001], lymph node ratio ≥ 0.06 (HR 2.35, p = 0.021), tumor diameter < 38 mm (HR 2.57, p = 0.007), and right-sided colon cancer (HR 2.11, p = 0.047) were significantly related to a poor OS.

Conclusions

These results suggest that laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer is safe and feasible, and the oncological outcomes are acceptable. Based on the present findings, select patients with locally advanced colon cancer should not be excluded from laparoscopic surgery.

Is There Any Reason Not to Perform Standard Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision?

The curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is currently based on chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopy has developed considerably because of obvious clinical benefits such as reduced pain and shorter hospital stay. Recently, several prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up have showed that laparoscopy is noninferior to laparotomy with the same oncologic outcomes in terms of survival and local control rate. However, laparoscopic TME remains a challenging procedure requiring a high level of expertise and a long learning curve to ensure an adequate and safe resection. The only relative contraindication of laparoscopic rectal surgery is T4 rectal cancer extended beyond the plane of TME. In this situation, it is reasonable to consider an open resection to avoid an uncomplete resection. In obese and elderly patients, laparoscopic TME also provides the same benefits as in nonobese and younger patients but may be more difficult to achieve. This review summarizes current knowledge on the place of laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of this procedure at our institution.

METHODS

From December 2011 to December 2016, patients who underwent robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer were investigated. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 31 patients; 17 men (54.8%) and 14 women (45.2%), with a median age of 65 years (range 40-82 years). Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had a cT4 tumor, 9 patients (29.0%) had a pT4b tumor, and all patients except one (96.8%) underwent complete resection of the primary tumor with negative resection margins. Eleven patients (35.5%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The most commonly resected organ was the vaginal wall (n = 12, 38.7%), followed by the prostate (n = 10, 32.3%). Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 20 patients (64.5%). The median operative time was 394 min (range 189-549 min), and the median blood loss was 41 mL (range 0-502 mL). None of the patients received intraoperative blood transfusions or required conversion to open. Overall, postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (35.5%). The most frequent complication was urinary retention (n = 5, 16.1%), and none of the patients developed serious complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grades III-V.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible.

Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic colon cancer resection for T4 lesions: a case-control analysis of 7-years' experience

BACKGROUND

According to many Societies' guidelines, patients presenting with clinical T4 colorectal cancer should conventionally be approached by a laparotomy. Results of emerging series are questioning this attitude.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the oncologic outcomes of 147 patients operated on between June 2008 and September 2015 for histologically proven pT4 colon cancers. All patients were treated with curative intent, either by a laparoscopic or open "en bloc" resection.

RESULTS

Median operative time, blood loss and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative surgical complication rate and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.09 and p = 0.99, respectively). R1 resection rate and lymph nodes harvest, as well, did not remarkably differ when comparing the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, conversion rate was 19%. Long-term outcomes were not affected in patients who had undergone conversion. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (44.6% and 40.3% vs. 39.4% and 38.9%). Locally advanced stages (IIIB-IIIC) and R1 resections were detected as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach might be safe and acceptable for locally advanced colon cancer and does not jeopardize the oncologic results. Conversion to open surgery should be a part of a strategy as it does not seem to adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. We consider laparoscopy, in expert hands, the last diagnostic tool and the first therapeutic approach for well-selected locally advanced colon cancers. Larger prospective studies are needed to widely assess this issue.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for surgical T4b colon cancers: Retrospective analyses

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic (Lap) surgery has not been established as a standard procedure for locally advanced colon cancers. Here, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of Lap multivisceral resection (MVR) for tumors that had invaded adjacent organs (T4b).

METHODS

We performed retrospective analyses using a single institutional database. Eighty-four patients who underwent Lap or open MVR for surgical T4b primary colon cancers satisfied the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Among the 84 patients, 48 underwent Lap MVR and 36 underwent open MVR. More patients in the open group were clinical T4b and were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the open group had worse performance status (P = 0.037) and tumors of greater diameter. Lap completion was achieved in 42 cases (87.5%); the conversion rate was highest in cases involving the urinary tract (40.0%). Lap reconstruction of the bladder or ureter was extremely challenging, and therefore, adjacent organ reconstruction influenced Lap completion. Regarding perioperative outcomes, Lap was superior to open surgery in terms of intraoperative blood loss, morbidity, and postoperative hospital stay. Conversion was required in six cases; five were strategic conversions, and conversion was not associated with severe morbidity. The microscopic positive surgical margin rate was not higher in the Lap group than in the open group. Kaplan-Meier analyses of overall and disease-free survival were comparable between the groups. Cox regression analyses revealed that the operative approach did not have a significant adverse effect on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The Lap approach could be considered for surgical T4b cancers, except for urinary tract invasion cases that require complicated reconstruction.

Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in pathologic T4 colon cancers compared to those of open surgery

INTRODUCTION

Despite the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer management, laparoscopy is not regarded as a standard treatment for T4 colon cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

From March 2003 to June 2013, a total of 109 consecutive patients with proven pathologic T4 colon cancer were enrolled. These patients were divided into the laparoscopy group (LG, n = 52) and the open group (OG, n = 57). Perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the LG, open conversion occurred in four patients (7.6%). Combined resection was less commonly performed in the LG (13.5%) than in the OG (36.8%, P = 0.005). Operation time was similar between the two groups. In the LG, blood loss (129 mL vs. 437 mL, P < 0.001) and overall complication rate (13.5 vs. 36.8%, P = 0.005) were lower and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 7 vs. 17 days, P < 0.001) than in the OG. The 5-year overall survival rate was 60.7% for the LG and 61.9% for the OG (P = 0.817). Local recurrence-free survival did not differ between the groups (88.9% in LG vs. 88.1% in OG, P = 0.725).

CONCLUSION

Considering the benefits of early recovery and similar oncologic outcomes, laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer could be a viable option in selected patients.

Laparoscopic surgery should be considered in T4 colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy in T4 colon cancers is not widely advocated due to concerns regarding safety and oncologic efficacy. We conducted this study to compare the short- and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open approaches in T4 colon cancers.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent surgery for T4 colon cancer from 2008 to 2014 was performed. Margin positive rate, lymph node yield, local or distant recurrence and overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients received open surgery, whilst 93 underwent laparoscopic surgery, with a conversion rate of 8.6%. There was no difference in the various measured outcomes between the laparoscopic and open groups. The relative risks of positive margins and inadequate lymph node yield for staging were 0.95 (0.74-1.23, p = 0.692) and 1.01 (0.97-1.05, p = 0.710), respectively, for the laparoscopic group when compared to the open approach. Regarding long-term outcomes, the relative risk of local recurrence in the laparoscopic group was 0.99 (0.96-1.02, p = 0.477), whilst there were also no increased risks of developing distal recurrences at the liver (RR 1.19, 0.51-2.82, p = 0.684), lungs (RR 1.20, 0.50-2.87, p = 0.678) and peritoneum (RR 1.22, 0.51-2.95, p = 0.653) in the laparoscopic group. There was also no difference in the overall survival (RR 0.70, 0.42-1.16, p = 0.168). Patients were followed up for a median of 73.3 months (range 34.8-144.7).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery does not compromise oncological outcomes in T4 colon cancers compared to the open approach. Because of its proven associated benefits, laparoscopy should be considered in selected T4 colon cancers.

Oncologic Outcomes Following Laparoscopic versus Open Resection of pT4 Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic resection, and clinical trials addressing the oncologic safety are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for locally advanced colon cancers.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened the literature for controlled trials or observational studies comparing curative-intent laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Studies were included if it was possible to determine outcomes for the T4 colon cancers separately, either reported in the article or calculated with individual patient data.

INTERVENTIONS

Included studies were systematically reviewed and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were done by using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, resection margins, and lymph node harvest.

RESULTS

Of 2878 identified studies, 5 observational studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 1268 patients (675 laparoscopic, 593 open). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.72), disease-free survival (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61), or positive surgical margins (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.32) between the groups. The open group had a larger lymph node retrieval (pooled mean difference, 2.26 nodes; 95% CI, 0.58-3.93). The pooled rate of conversion from laparoscopy to an open procedure was 18.6% (95% CI, 9.3%-27.9%).

LIMITATIONS

These results are limited by the inherent selection bias in the included nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, minimally invasive resection of selected locally advanced colon cancer is oncologically safe. There is a small increase in lymph node harvest with open resections, but it is unclear whether this is clinically significant. Surgeons should be prepared for a significant rate of conversion to laparotomy as required to perform en bloc resection.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for advanced-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the operative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LAR) versus open anterior rectal resection (OAR) for patients with pT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a multicenter propensity score matching (PSM) study of patients undergoing elective curative-intent LAR or OAR for pT4 rectal cancer (TNM stage II/III/IV) between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients were included in the analysis. After PSM, demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics were similar between the 52 LAR and the 52 OAR patients. Overall, 52 tumors were located in the high rectum, 25 in the mid-rectum and 27 in the low rectum. Multivisceral resection was performed in 26.9% of LAR and 30.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.829). Conversion was required in 11 LAR patients (21.2%). The LAR group showed significantly shorter time to flatus (3.13 vs. 4.97 days, p = 0.001), time to regular diet (3.59 vs. 6.36 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (15.49 vs. 17.96 days, p = 0.002) compared to the OAR group. The 90-day morbidity and mortality were not different between groups. In the majority of patients (85.6%), R0 resection was achieved. A complete mesorectal excision was obtained in 82.7% of LAR and 78.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.855). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were, respectively, 95.6, 73.8 and 66.7% for the LAR group and 86.7, 66.9 and 64.1% for the OAR group (p = 0.219). The presence of synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 2.26), R1 resection (HR 2.71) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.24) were significant predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that LAR for pT4 rectal cancer can achieve good pathologic and oncologic outcomes similar to open surgery despite the risk of conversion. Moreover, laparoscopy offers the benefits of a faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) versus open colectomy (OC) in a bicentric cohort of patients with T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective PSM analysis of consecutive patients undergoing elective LC or OC for pT4 colon cancer (TNM stage II/III) between 2005 and 2014.

RESULTS

Overall, 237 patients were selected. After PSM, 106 LC-and 106 OC-matched patients were compared. LC was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OC (220 vs. 190 min, p < 0.0001; 116 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.002, respectively). LC patients showed a faster recovery, which translated into a shorter hospital stay compared to OC (10.5 vs. 15.3 days, p < 0.0001). Conversion was required in 13 (12.2 %) LC patients. No group difference was observed for 30- and 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in the majority of LC and OC patients (93.9 %). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 99, 76.8, and 58.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 98, 70.1, and 59.9 %, respectively, for the OC group (p = 0.864). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival was 86.3, 66, 57.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 79.1, 55.1, and 50.2 % for the OC group (p = 0.261).

CONCLUSION

With an acceptable conversion rate, laparoscopy can achieve complete oncologic resections of T4 colon cancer similar to open surgery and can be considered a safe and feasible alternative approach that confers the advantage of a faster recovery.