Dataset Information

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)

ABSTRACT: Abstract

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.) CONSORT diagram. OP, open surgery; LAP, laparoscopic surgery. Of the 1057 patients, the patients with pathological stage IV and R2 resection were excluded. The final number of patients analyzed was 1025.

SUBMITTER: Saito S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8560616 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Studies evaluating the outcomes after laparoscopic resections of transverse colon cancers are scant. This manuscript aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic (Lap) and open procedures for transverse colon carcinomas. All consecutive patients who underwent resection for a cancer located in the transverse colon between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to the surgical approach (Lap versus open) and groups were compared. Outcome measures were the short-term results, complications and functional recovery; moreover, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared overall and after propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, sex, ASA classification, BMI, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, use of postoperative chemotherapy, location of tumour, stage and grading, operation time, blood loss and complications. Of 248 transverse resections reviewed, 146 (81 Lap and 65 open) were selected for data analysis. Blood loss, fluid intake and the incidence of wound infection were significantly lower and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Lap group (P < 0.001). The operation time and incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or above) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Mean follow-up was of 75.4 months in the Lap group and 78.6 months in the open group. Regression analyses showed that OS was associated with the postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (hazard ratio 1.18 (95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.27); P < 0.001), BMI (hazard ratio 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.96); P = 0.017), operation time (hazard ratio 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.00; P = 0.010), and postoperative chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.27 (95 per cent c.i. 0.08 to 0.96); P = 0.042), while RFS was associated with the postoperative CEA level (hazard ratio 1.13 (95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 1.20); P < 0.001). PSM selected 42 patients for data comparison of long-term results, and showed no significant differences between groups (RFS: P = 0.530; OS: P = 0.561). Lap and open resections for transverse colon cancer provided similar outcomes in terms of severe post-operative complication and long-term results.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up.MethodsBetween March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842).ResultsIn total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4).ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.

Project description:Importance:Colon surgery is associated with a high rate of surgical site infection (SSI), and there is an urgent need for strategies to reduce infection rates. Objective:To assess whether laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with a lower surgical site infection rate than open-approach laparoscopy, especially in patients with medically complex conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used previously validated diagnosis and procedure codes from Medicare beneficiaries who underwent colon surgery from January 1, 2009, to November 30, 2013. Analyses were performed from August 1 to December 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcome measures were SSI events, medical comorbidities, and laparoscopic or open approach procedures. Results:A total of 229 726 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.3 [9.4] years; 128 499 [55.9%] female) underwent colon procedures. There were 105 144 laparoscopic procedures and 124 582 open procedures. The overall mean SSI rate was 6.2%, varying by surgical procedure from 5.8% to 7.6%. Among the full study population, adjusted model results showed a significant association of laparoscopy with lower odds of SSI (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.41-0.46; P < .001). When stratified by surgical approach, the mean SSI rates were 4.1% (procedure-specific range, 3.9%-5.1%) for the laparoscopic approach and 7.9% (procedure-specific range, 7.4%-10.2%) for the open approach. When stratified by Elixhauser score groups, the mean SSI rates were 6.2% (procedure-specific range, 3.2%-8.7%) for group 1 (0-1 comorbidity), 5.5% (procedure-specific range, 3.6%-11.1%) for group 2 (2 comorbidities), and 6.6% (procedure-specific range, 4.6%-10.6%) for group 3 (3-13 comorbidities). An interaction was also observed between laparoscopic approach and Elixhauser groups, with increased odds of SSI among patients who had 3 to 13 comorbidities present at the time of the procedure (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32) compared with patient groups with fewer comorbidities. The population attributable fraction of SSIs for use of the open approach was 34.2%. A total of 2317 of 3882 hospitals (59.7%) performed few (0%-10%) or most (>50%) procedures laparoscopically. Conclusions and Relevance:Policy changes that promote surgical education and resources for laparoscopy, especially at low-adoption hospitals, may be associated with reduced colon SSI rates. Support of the development of innovative educational policies may help achieve improvement in patient outcomes and decreased health care use in colon surgery.

Project description:BackgroundThe THUNDERBEAT is a multi-functional energy device which delivers both ultrasonic and bipolar energy, but there are no randomized trials which can provide more rigorous evaluation of the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT compared to other energy-based devices in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of THUNDERBEAT energy device to Maryland LigaSure in patients undergoing left laparoscopic colectomy.MethodsProspective randomized trial with two groups: Group 1 THUNDERBEAT and Group 2 LigaSure in a single university hospital. 60 Subjects, male and female, of age 18 years and above undergoing left colectomy for cancer or diverticulitis were included. The primary outcome was dissection time to specimen removal (DTSR) measured in minutes from the start of colon mobilization to specimen removal from the abdominal cavity. Versatility (composite of five variables) was measured by a score system from 1 to 5 (1 being worst and 5 the best), and adjusted/weighted by coefficient of importance with distribution of the importance as follow: hemostasis 0.275, sealing 0.275, cutting 0.2, dissection 0.15, and tissue manipulation 0.1. Other variables were: dryness of surgical field, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and mortality. Follow-up time was 30 days.Results60 Patients completed surgery, 31 in Group 1 and 29 in Group 2. There was no difference in the DTSR between the groups, 91 min vs. 77 min (p = 0.214). THUNDERBEAT showed significantly higher score in dissecting and tissue manipulation in segment 3 (omental dissection), and in overall versatility score (p = 0.007) as well as versatility score in Segment 2 (retroperitoneal dissection p = 0.040) and Segment 3 (p = 0.040). No other differences were noted between the groups.ConclusionsBoth energy devices can be employed effectively and safely in dividing soft tissue and sealing mesenteric blood vessels during laparoscopic left colon surgery, with THUNDERBEAT demonstrating some advantages over LigaSure during omental dissection and tissue manipulation.Clinicaltrialgov # NCT02628093.