Dataset Information

Consensus statements on complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer-technical steps and training implications.

ABSTRACT:

Background

CME is a radical resection for colon cancer, but the procedure is technically demanding with significant variation in its practice. A standardised approach to the optimal technique and training is, therefore, desirable to minimise technical hazards and facilitate safe dissemination. The aim is to develop an expert consensus on the optimal technique for Complete Mesocolic Excision (CME) for right-sided and transverse colon cancer to guide safe implementation and training pathways.

Methods

Guidance was developed following a modified Delphi process to draw consensus from 55 international experts in CME and surgical education representing 18 countries. Domain topics were formulated and subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of CME practice. A three-round Delphi voting on 25 statements based on the specific questions and 70% agreement was considered as consensus.

Results

Twenty-three recommendations for CME procedure were agreed on, describing the technique and optimal training pathway. CME is recommended as the standard of care resection for locally advanced colon cancer. The essential components are central vascular ligation, exposure of the superior mesenteric vein and excision of an intact mesocolon. Key anatomical landmarks to perform a safe CME dissection include identification of the ileocolic pedicle, superior mesenteric vein and root of the mesocolon. A proficiency-based multimodal training curriculum for CME was proposed including a formal proctorship programme.

Conclusions

Consensus on standardisation of technique and training framework for complete mesocolic excision was agreed upon by a panel of experts to guide current practice and provide a quality control framework for future studies.

SUBMITTER: Tejedor P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9283340 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have shown the benefits of complete mesocolic excision and extended lymphadenectomy (D3 lymph node dissection) in patients with colon cancer.1-3 METHODS: We present the case of a 62-year-old male with hepatic flexure adenocarcinoma. No metastatic disease was identified by computed tomography. A robot-assisted extended right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision, D3 lymph node dissection, and resection of the mesentery with intact visceral peritoneum was performed.ResultsThe trocars are placed in the right lower (8 mm), lower midline (8 mm), and left upper (12 mm) quadrants. The camera port is placed superior to the umbilicus, and the assistant port is placed in the left lower quadrant. The robotic right lower port is used to place the cecum on tension in order to outline the ileocolic pedicle. The assistant retracts the transverse colon cephalad to outline the superior mesenteric artery and vein. Using two robotic arms, the surgeon begins dissection over the superior mesenteric vein inferior to the ileocolic pedicle. Cephalad dissection along the superior mesenteric vein proceeds with reflection of the mesentery and D3 lymph nodes laterally to allow en bloc resection. The ileocolic and middle colic vessels are identified, ligated and divided at their origins. The plane is then developed between the right colon mesentery and the retroperitoneum, including Gerota's fascia, duodenum, and head of the pancreas, in a medial-to-lateral fashion, with care taken to ensure an intact visceral peritoneum is maintained. The proximal transverse colon, hepatic flexure, and ascending colon are mobilized by taking down lateral attachments. The intervening mesentery is transected, and perfusion is assessed with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging. An intracorporeal, isoperistaltic, side-to-side anastomosis is performed using the 45-mm robotic stapler. The common enterotomy is sewn closed in two layers. Pathology showed T3N0 adenocarcinoma with all negative margins.ConclusionExtended right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymph node dissection is facilitated by a robotic approach, which improves visualization and instrument dexterity.

Project description:The difference between left- and right-sided colon cancer has become the focus of global attention, and researchers have found differences in the morbidity, molecular biological characteristics, and response to targeted drug therapy between left- and right-sided colon cancer. Therefore, the identification of more effective predictive indicators is critical for providing guidance to future clinical work. We collected samples from different colon sites and regions and analyzed the identities and distributions of differentially expressed species in the microbiota in the left and right sides of the colon to better explore the pathogenesis of colon cancer and provided a basis for individualized drug therapy. We collected samples from different regions in the body of 40 patients with colon cancer, including stool and tissues. The Subjects were classified into four groups, and this classification was mainly based on the colon cancer distribution. The microbiota composition of the left-sided and right-sided colon samples was assessed by specifically amplifying the V3-V4 region of the 16S rDNA gene from DNA extracts from the samples. These amplicons were examined by Illumina HiSeq 2500 sequencing. The microbial taxa in the left-sided colon samples are more abundant than those in the right-sided colon samples. The flora in the left-sided colon samples, such as Clostridium perfringens and Fusobacterium nucleatum, might be associated with VEGF expression and are more likely to promote colon cancer. The microbiota distribution in the right-sided colon samples is less invasive and harmful and particularly rich in Bifidobacterium dentium. In addition, Streptococcus, which is the target of EGFR, was found to be expressed in both the left- and right-sided colon samples but was found at a higher level in the left-sided colon samples. Additionally, the differential pathways involved in the left-sided colon samples mainly mediate DNA damage, methylation, and histone modifications, whereas those in the right-sided colon samples are dominated by DNA synthesis. The comparison of only the geographical differences revealed a significant difference in the distribution of the microbial population. The adherent microbiota composition and structural changes between the left- and right-sided colon samples might contribute to the development of colon cancer, lead to different morbidities, and further affect the prognosis of patients and their sensitivity to targeted drugs. Therefore, the identification of the differential flora in the colon could be used as an indicator for predicting the occurrence and development of colon cancer, which is also beneficial for future individualized drug therapy.

Project description:The colon is derived from the embryological midgut and hindgut separately, with the right colon and left colon having different features with regards to both anatomical and physiological characteristics. Cancers located in the right and left colon are referred to as right colon cancer (RCC) and left colon cancer (LCC), respectively, based on their apparent anatomical positions. Increasing evidence supports the notion that not only are there differences in treatment strategies when dealing with RCC and LCC, but molecular features also vary between them, not to mention the distinguishing clinical manifestations. Disease-free survival after radical surgery of both RCC and LCC are similar. In the treatment of RCC, the benefit gained from adjuvant FOLFIRI chemotherapy is superior, or at least similar, to LCC, but inferior to LCC if FOLFOX regimen is applied. On the other hand, metastatic LCC exhibits longer survival than that of RCC in a palliative chemotherapy setting. For KRAS wild-type cancers, LCC benefits more from cetuximab treatment than RCC. Moreover, advanced LCC shows a higher sensitivity to bevacizumab treatment in comparison with advanced RCC. Significant varieties exist at the molecular level between RCC and LCC, which may serve as the cause of all apparent differences. With respect to carcinogenesis mechanisms, RCC is associated with known gene types, such as MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and miRNA-31, while LCC is associated with CIN, p53, NRAS, miRNA-146a, miRNA-147b, and miRNA-1288. Regarding protein expression, RCC is related to GNAS, NQO1, telomerase activity, P-PDH, and annexin A10, while LCC is related to Topo I, TS, and EGFR. In addition, separated pathways dominate progression to relapse in RCC and LCC. Therefore, RCC and LCC should be regarded as two heterogeneous entities, with this heterogeneity being used to stratify patients in order for them to have the optimal, current, and novel therapeutic strategies in clinical practice. Additional research is needed to uncover further differences between RCC and LCC.