The outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection in T4 cancer

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.

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.

Fluorescence ureteral navigation during laparoscopic surgery for clinically suspected stage T4 colorectal cancer: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15% of patients with colorectal cancer present with locally advanced tumors (T4 stage). Laparoscopic surgery for stage T4 disease has not yet been established. The near-infrared ray catheter fluorescent ureteral catheter (NIRFUC) is a new device that uses near-infrared fluorescence resin. We examined the utility of fluorescence ureteral navigation (FUN) with the NIRFUC during laparoscopic surgery for stage T4 colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with stage T4 colorectal cancer (n = 143, from January 2017 to March 2021) were divided into a T4FUN + group, in which the NIRFUC was used (n = 21), and a T4FUN- group, in which the NIRFUC was not used (n = 122). Short-term outcomes were compared between the groups. Next, the laparoscopic surgery rate and incidence of ureteral injury from January 2017 to March 2021 were compared between the T4FUN- group and the non-stage T4FUN- group (n = 434, from January 2017 to March 2021), in which fluorescence ureter navigation was not used.

RESULTS

Rectal cancer, stage T4b disease, and invasion into the urinary tract were observed more often in the T4FUN + group than in the T4FUN- group. In the comparisons of the T4FUN + versus T4FUN- groups, the operative time was 398 (161-1090) vs. 256 (93-839) minutes, the blood loss was 10 (1-710) vs. 25 (0-1360) ml, and the ratio of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery was 21:0 vs. 79:43. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) were present in 2 (10%; 0 ureteral injury) patients in the T4FUN + group and 13 (11%; 2 ureteral injury) patients in the T4FUN- group. In the T4FUN + group, the operative time was longer (p < 0.0001), but the laparoscopic ratio was higher (p = 0.0002), and the blood loss volume and incidence of ureteral injury tended to be lower. In the comparisons of the T4FUN- versus non-stage T4FUN- groups, the ratio of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery was 79:43 vs. 384:50, the incidence of open conversion was 8 (6.6%) vs. 15 (3.5%), and the incidence of ureteral injury was 2 (1.6%) vs. 0 (0%). In the T4FUN- group, the open surgery rate (<0.0001), open conversion rate (p = 0.0205) and incidence of ureteral injury (p = 0.0478) were high, with a significant difference observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with stage T4 disease have an increased risk of ureteral injury and are more likely to be converted to open surgery. FUN can help to safely increase the laparoscopic surgery rate while safely visualizing the ureter. FUN is recommended for laparoscopic surgery in patients with stage T4 colorectal cancer.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Examination of fluorescence navigation for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery; Research Ethics Committee of the Kawaguchi Municipal Medical Center (Saitama, Japan) approval number: 2020-3. https://kawaguchi-mmc.org/wp-content/uploads/clinical research-r02.pdf.

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.

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.

Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pathological T4 colon cancer

PURPOSE

The surgical indication of laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer remains to be established because only a few studies have investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for them to date. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the validity of laparoscopic surgery for them.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with pT4 colon cancer who underwent surgical resection with a curative intent at Kobe University Hospital from January 2007 to December 2015. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the propensity score-matched patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (LAP group, n = 25) and those who underwent open colectomy (OP group, n = 25).

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LAP group than in the OP group (p = 0.029). Operative time, R0 resection rate, and morbidity did not significantly differ between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) did not significantly differ between the propensity score-matched groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the entire cohort showed the surgical approach (LAP vs OP) selected was not a significant prognostic factor for OS or RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The short and the long-term outcomes were similar between the LAP and OP groups. Laparoscopic surgery might be a safe and feasible option for pT4 colon cancer 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.

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.

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.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic surgery's value in pathological T4 colon cancer with comparison to open surgery: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

In spite of the unique advantages of minimally invasive treatment, laparoscopic surgery is not recommended in T4 colon cancer patients with the concern of technical feasibility and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. We used the database of our center to reevaluate laparoscopic surgery's value in T4 colon cancer and compared with open surgery in both short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and propensity score-matched study of pathological T4 colon cancer patients who received laparoscopic surgery or open surgery from March 2011 to August 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 411 pathological T4 colon cancer patients were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 86 patients in laparoscopic group and 86 patients in open group. Our study showed longer operation time, less blood loss and less length of postsurgical stay compared with open surgeries (167 ± 56 min vs. 111 ± 50.1 min, P < 0.001; 72 ± 61.5 mL vs. 113 ± 113.9 mL, P = 0.004; 7.3 ± 2.1 days vs. 7.9 ± 2.1 days, P = 0.046, respectively). 7 (8.2%) patients underwent conversions to open surgery. 5-years of DFS and OS showed no statistic difference between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.4%, 77.5% and 73.2% for laparoscopic surgery and 95.2%, 82.7% and 73.9% for open surgery (P = 0.618). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.5%, 77.2% and 61.7% for laparoscopic surgery and 91.7%, 75.3% and 66.8% for open surgery (P = 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that there is no statistic difference in short- and long-oncologic outcomes in our center and it is a reliable evidence to support the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer patients. Still, considering the lack of randomized controlled trails, conducting large prospective multi-center population-based studies is not only required, but also pressing.

Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for pathological T4 colorectal cancer: 10 years of experience in a single center

AIM

To evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for pathological T4 (pT4) colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of proven pT4 colorectal cancer patients who underwent complete resection by laparoscopic or open surgery from 2006 to 2015 at Guangdong General Hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 211 pT4 colorectal cancer patients were included in this analysis, including 101 cases in the laparoscopy (LAP) group and 110 cases in the open surgery (OPEN) group [including 15 (12.9%) cases of conversion to open surgery]. Clinical information (age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, etc.) did not differ between the two groups. In terms of blood loss, postoperative complications and rate of recovery, the LAP group performed significantly more favorably (P < 0.05). With regard to pT4a/b and combined organ resection, there were significantly more cases in the OPEN group (P < 0.05). The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 74.9% and 60.5%, respectively, for the LAP group and 62.4% and 46.5%, respectively, for the OPEN group (P = 0.060). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 68.0% and 57.3%, respectively, for the LAP group and 55.8% and 39.8%, respectively, for the OPEN group (P = 0.053). Multivariate analysis showed that IIIB/IIIC stage, lymph node status, and CA19-9 were significant predictors of overall survival. PT4a/b, IIIC stage, histological subtypes, CA19-9, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent factors affecting disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is safely used in the treatment of pT4 colorectal cancer while offering advantages of minimal invasiveness and faster recovery. Laparoscopy is able to achieve good oncologic outcomes similar to those of open surgery. We recommend that laparoscopy be carried out in experienced centers. It is still required to screen the appropriate cases for laparoscopic surgery, optimize the preoperative diagnosis process, and reduce the conversion rate. Multi-center, prospective, and large-sample studies are required to assess these issues.

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.

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.

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.

The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: our experience of 39 cases

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced colorectal cancer suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures remains controversial because of its high conversion rate, inadequate oncologic clearance and surgical outcomes. This study retrospectively evaluated the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer and investigated the factors influencing conversion to open surgery.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2015, 39 patients who underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer intraoperatively suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures were included. The conversion rate, resection margin status, surgical results, and morbidity and mortality rates were evaluated. We also investigated the factors influencing conversion.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 28 %. The resection margin was negative in all cases. The median operative time was 247 min, and the median blood loss was 80 ml. The postoperative mortality rate was 0 %, and the morbidity rate was 28 %; complications of Grade 3 or more were observed in 2 patients (5 %). The factors influencing conversion were ≥2 adherent organs (p = 0.028) and clinical suspicion of direct invasion to adjacent organs (cT4b) (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer intraoperatively suspected of direct invasion to adjacent organs or structures is feasible in selected patients. Conversion is more likely with ≥2 adherent organs and cT4b.

Clinically suspected T4 colorectal cancer may be resected using a laparoscopic approach

Background

The role of laparoscopic resection in patients with clinically suspicious T4 colorectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection and the open approach in clinical T4 colorectal cancer.

Methods

Two hundred ninety-three consecutive patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer suspected to be T4 by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging were reviewed.

Results

Despite clinical suspicion of T4 disease in all cases, concordance with pathologic determination of T4 was only 37.9 %. Of the 71 patients in the laparoscopic group, four (5.6 %) were converted to the open technique. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), fewer days to first flatus (p = 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), and fewer adverse events (14.1 % versus 31.5 %, p = 0.004). After a median follow-up of 36 months, 5-year disease-free survival was not significantly different between the two groups (81.8 % in laparoscopic versus 73.9 % in open surgery, p = 0.433). The clinical factors that predicted T4 staging on pathologic examination were found to be male sex (p = 0.038), preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen status (p = 0.021), clinical N status (p = 0.046), and clinical cancer perforation (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colorectal resection for T4 colorectal cancer has perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes similar to those of the open approach when performed by an experienced surgeon.

The short-term and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 colon cancer

PURPOSE

To compare R0 resection rates and short-term and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopy and open surgery for T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients with non-metastatic T4 colon cancer (n = 117) underwent treatment either through laparoscopy (n = 51) or open surgery (n = 66). Conversion to open surgery occurred in seven cases (13.7%).

RESULTS

History of abdominal surgery (2.0 vs. 12.1%) and emergency operation (2.1 vs. 24.2%) were less frequent in the laparoscopy group. Conversion to open surgery occurred in seven cases (13.7%). Resection of adjacent organs was less frequently performed in the laparoscopy group (27.5 vs. 53.0%, p = .005). The mean operative time (189 vs. 210 min) and rate of 30-day postoperative complications (12 vs. 24%) were similar between the two groups. Shorter time to soft diet (7 vs. 9 days, p = .018) and hospital stay (14 vs. 18 days, p = .044) were observed in the laparoscopy group. T4b tumor was also less frequent in the laparoscopy group (3.9 vs. 18.2%, p = .018), while R0 resection rates were similar between the laparoscopy (96.1%) and open surgery group (95.5%). The mean number of lymph nodes was 22 in the laparoscopy group and 27 in the open surgery group (p = .021). No differences in 3-year overall survival rate (82.5 vs. 75.7%), recurrence-free survival rate (61.9 vs. 63.5%), and local recurrence-free survival rate (89.8 vs. 88.5%) were observed between the groups. Operation time, blood loss, 30-day complication rate, time to diet, duration of hospital stay, R0 resection rate, 3-year overall and local recurrence-free survival rates showed no difference between the converted and open surgery groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that laparoscopy is a surgically safe and oncologically acceptable approach and thus could be considered for well-selected patients with T4 colon cancer in order to allow faster short-term recovery.

Laparoscopic resection of t4 colon cancers: is it feasible?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgical treatment of T4 cancers remains a concern that is mostly associated with technical feasibility, high conversion rate, inadequate oncologic clearance, and surgical outcome.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the short- and long-term clinical and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open surgeries for T4 colon cancers.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of patients with T4 colon cancer without metastasis (M0) who had laparoscopic or open surgery from 2003 to 2011.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

A total of 83 patients with pT4 colon cancer were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

R0 resection rate, morbidity and mortality within 30 postoperative days, overall survival, and disease-free survival were measured.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery was performed on 61 and open surgery on 22 patients. The groups were similar in overall staging (p = 0.461), with 35 (42%) of the patients at stage 2 and 48 (58%) at stage 3. A complete R0 resection was achieved in 61 (100%) of the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and in 21 (96%) of the patients who underwent open surgery (p = 0.265). The average number of lymph nodes harvested was 21 in the laparoscopic group and 24 in the open group (p = 0.202). Thirty-day morbidity rate was similar between the groups (p = 0.467), and the mortality rate was 0. The length of hospital and postsurgical stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.008). The 3-year overall survival rates between the groups were 82% (range, 71%-93%) for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and 81% (range, 61%-100%) for those who underwent open surgery (p = 0.525), and disease-free survival was 67% (range, 54%-79%) for laparoscopic surgery and 64% (range, 43%-86%) for open surgery (p = 0.848). The follow-up time was 40 ± 25 in months in the laparoscopic group and 34 ± 26 months in the open surgery group (p = 0.325).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study at a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that laparoscopic surgery is feasible in T4 colon cancers. With comparable clinical and oncologic outcomes, this study suggests that laparoscopy may be considered as an alternative approach for T4 colon cancers with the advantage of faster recovery (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A156).

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10.9%. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4%). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60-180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4%; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6%; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.

Laparoscopic versus open multivisceral resection for primary colorectal cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs is controversial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This study included 126 patients who underwent multivisceral resection for primary colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs or structures between July 2005 and November 2012 at our institution. Perioperative outcomes were compared between laparoscopic and open resections.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic and open multivisceral resections were performed in 60 and 66 patients, respectively. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 6.7 % of patients. The median operative time was significantly longer (271 vs. 227 min), but the median blood loss was significantly less (40 vs. 205 mL), in the laparoscopic compared with the open group. The R0 resection rate of the primary tumor (95 vs. 98.5 %), number of lymph nodes harvested (18 vs. 18), and postoperative complications (28 vs. 24 %) were comparable between the groups. The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (13.5 vs. 18 days) in the laparoscopic compared with the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs is safe and feasible in selected patients.