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

Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for pathological T4 and/or N2 colon cancer patients: Multicenter study using propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery (LAP) vs open surgery (OP) for pathological T4 (pT4) and/or N2 (pN2) colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 255 primary tumor resections for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer performed from 2015 to 2020 at six hospitals, divided into LAP (n = 204) and OP groups (n = 51). After propensity score matching to minimize selection bias, 47 matched patients per group were assessed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the rate of males (53.9% vs. 37.3%, P = .042), left sided colon cancer (53.9% vs 37.3%, P = .042), D3 lymph node dissection (90.7% vs 68.6%, P < .001) and body mass index (kg/m2 ) (22.3 vs 21.8, P = .039) were significantly greater in the LAP group. The rate of pT4b (7.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001) was lower and pN2 was higher (57.4% vs 37.3%, P = .012) in the LAP group. After matching, preoperative characteristics and pathologic status were equivalent between the groups. The LAP and OP groups showed comparable overall survival (OS) (2-year OS, 84.5% vs 76.8%, P = .055) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year RFS, 73.9% vs 52.8%, P = .359). In the patients with pT4, OS (2-year OS, 79.4% vs 75.7%, P = .359) and RFS (2-year RFS, 71.3% vs 58.7%) were comparable. In the patients with pN2, OS (2-year OS, 83.4% vs 76.3%) and RFS (2-year RFS, 69.6% vs 36.2%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer showed comparable mid-term outcomes compared with OP. LAP was an acceptable surgical approach in this cohort.

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 patients with locally advanced colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is challenging due to tumor size and the frequent need for multivisceral resection. The role of laparoscopic resection in LACC is controversial. This study aims to compare outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery in LACC.

METHODS

A population-based retrospective review was conducted of patients treated at a Provincial Cancer Center for LACC from 2005 to 2015. Patients with non-metastatic T4 colon cancers were included. Descriptive, survival, and recurrence analyses were used.

RESULTS

In all, 1,328 patients were reviewed, 23% of whom had laparoscopic surgery. A greater number of T4b tumors were removed via an open approach (35.9% vs 12.7%, P < .001). Positive resection margins occurred in 7.5% of laparoscopic and 16.5% of open cases (P < .001), and multivisceral resection was required in 11.0% and 27.7% (P < .001), respectively. Median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range [IQR] 17-64) during which 48.6% patients died and 42.1% developed recurrence: locoregional (15.0%), distant (35.3%), peritoneal (11.4%). Age, right-sided tumors, nodal status, and laparoscopic approach were independent predictors of peritoneal recurrence. Overall survival (OS) (73 vs 61 months, P = .188) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (39 vs 31 months, P = .288) were similar with both approaches. Age, nodal, and margin status were predictive of OS and RFS.

CONCLUSION

Open surgical approach is used more frequently when tumors invade adjacent organs or require multivisceral resections. When employed, laparoscopic approach had similar rates of survival and recurrence compared with open approach, but was an independent predictor of peritoneal recurrence. Careful patient selection in operative approach is suggested.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum]

An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.

Oncological outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for pathological T4 colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSES

Whether laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is safe and effective for patients with locally advanced T4 colon cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with pathological (p) T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 151 consecutive patients with pT4M0 colon cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2010 and 2017 using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 100 patients (n = 50 in each group). Median follow-up was 43.5 months. The conversion rate to laparotomy in this study was 5.5% for the entire patient cohort and 6.0% for the matched cohort. Compared to the OC group, the LC group showed reductions in estimated blood loss and length of postsurgical stay. Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II and all-grade complication rates were significantly lower in the LC group than in the OC group. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with LC. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of overall, cancer-specific, recurrence-free survival, or incidence of local recurrence among the entire patient cohort and matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes were similar between the LC and OC groups. LC offers a safe, feasible option for patients with pT4 colon cancer.

Survival outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer: a two-center cohort study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND?>

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is commonly performed in China. However, compared with open surgery, the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery, especially the long-term survival, has not been sufficiently proved.

METHODS?>

Data of eligible patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer at Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between 2012 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term survival outcomes and short-term surgical safety were analysed with propensity score matching between groups.

RESULTS

Of 430 cases collated from two institutes, 103 matched pairs were analysed after propensity score matching. The estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (P = 0.019) and the operative time and hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopic group (both P < 0.001). The post-operative complications rate was 9.7% in the laparoscopic group and 10.7% in the open group (P = 0.818). No significant difference was observed between the laparoscopic group and the open group in the 5-year overall survival rate (75.7% vs 80.6%, P = 0.346), 5-year relapse-free survival rate (74.8% vs 76.7%, P = 0.527), or 5-year cancer-specific survival rate (79.6% vs 87.4%, P = 0.219). An elevated carcinoembryonic antigen, <12 harvested lymph nodes, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors affecting overall survival and relapse-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS?>

Our findings suggest that open surgery should still be the priority recommendation, but laparoscopic surgery is also an acceptable treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic approach for left-sided T4 colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure, compared to open surgery

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach can be attempted for pathologic T4 (pT4) colon cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the clinico-oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open surgery for right and left-sided pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

From a multicentric collaborative database, we enrolled 245 patients with right-sided colon cancer (RCC, 128 laparoscopy and 117 open) and 338 with left-sided colon cancer (LCC, 176 laparoscopy and 162 open). All patients underwent intended curative surgery for histologically proven T4 adenocarcinoma, between 2004 and 2013. The primary end-point of our analysis was the oncologic outcome, including the 5-year disease-free survival (5 year-DFS) and the 5-year overall survival (5 year-OS). The secondary end-points included the R0 resection rate and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Our study group included 224 T4N0 and 359 T4N+ tumors. The median follow-up was 53 months. For patients with RCC, the rate of postoperative morbidities was lower for the laparoscopy than that for the open surgery group (12.5 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.044). There was no difference in the R0 resection rate (94.5 vs. 96.6%, p = 0.425) between the groups. The 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates were lower for the laparoscopy than that in the open group (48.9% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.093; 60.0% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.284, respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among patients with LCC, there were no differences in the rate of postoperative complication and R0 resection (15.3 vs. 21.0%, p = 0.307; 96.0 vs. 95.7%, p = 0.875, respectively). Both groups had comparable 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates (62.7% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.552; 72.0% vs. 71.8%, p = 0.611, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery appears to be a safe procedure for patients with pT4 LCC, but requires careful consideration for patients with pT4 RCC.