Dataset Information

Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter-preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid-low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined.

Methods

Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity-score matching on baseline features was performed.

Results

Before propensity-score matching, no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5-year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity-score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5-year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5-year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusions

When aiming to achieve at least a 1-2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.

SUBMITTER: Zhang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although controversial, there are data suggesting that clinical parameters can predict the probability of sphincter preserving procedures in rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between clinical parameters and the sphincter-preserving surgery rate in patients who had undergone neoadjuvant combination therapy for advanced low rectal cancer. METHODS:In this single center study, the charts of 540 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had been treated with induction chemotherapy-and/or neoadjuvant concomitant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) over an 11-year period were reviewed in order to identify patients with rectal cancer ?6?cm from the anal verge, who had received the prescribed nRCT only. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify pretreatment patient- and tumor associated parameters correlating with sphincter preservation. Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS:Two hundred eighty of the 540 patients met the selection criteria. Of the 280 patients included in the study, 158 (56.4%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgery. One hundred sixty-four of 280 patients (58.6%) had a downsizing of the primary tumor (ypT?<?cT) and 39 (23.8%) of these showed a complete histopathological response (ypT0 ypN0). In univariate analysis, age prior to treatment, Karnofsky performance status, clinical T-size, relative lymphocyte value, CRP value, and interval between nRCT and surgery, were significantly associated with sphincter-preserving surgery. In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR)?=?1.05, CI95%: 1.02-1.09, p?=?0.003), relative lymphocyte value (HR?=?0.94, CI95%: 0.89-0.99, p?=?0.029), and interval between nRCT and surgery (HR?=?2.39, CI95%: 1.17-4.88, p?=?0.016) remained as independent predictive parameters. CONCLUSIONS:These clinical parameters can be considered in the prognostication of sphincter-preserving surgery in case of low rectal adenocarcinoma. More future research is required in this area.

Project description:Background:Defunctioning stoma is widely used to reduce anastomotic complications in rectal cancer surgery. However, the complications of stoma and stoma reversal surgery should not be underestimated. Furthermore, in some patients, stoma reversal failed. Here, we investigated the complications of defunctioning stoma surgery and subsequent reversal surgery and identify risk factors associated with the failure of getting stoma reversed. Methods:In total, 154 patients who simultaneously underwent low anterior resection and defunctioning stoma were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether their stoma got reversed or not. The reasons that patients received defunctioning stoma and experienced stoma-related complications and the risk factors for failing to get stoma reversed were analysed. Results:The mean follow-up time was 47.54 (range 4.0-164.0) months. During follow-up, 19.5% of the patients suffered stoma-related long-term complications. Only 79 (51.3%) patients had their stomas reversed. The morbidity of complications after reversal surgery was 45.6%, and these mainly consisted of incision-related complications. Multivariate analyses showed that pre-treatment comorbidity (HR = 3.17, 95% CI 1.27-7.96, P = 0.014), postoperative TNM stage (HR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.05-6.18, P = 0.038), neoadjuvant therapy (HR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.07-7.05, P = 0.036), anastomosis-related complications (HR = 4.52, 95% CI 1.81-11.29, P = 0.001), and disease recurrence (HR = 24.83, 95% CI 2.90-213.06, P = 0.003) were significant independent risk factors for a defunctioning stoma to be permanent. Conclusions:Defunctioning stoma is an effective method to reduce symptomatic anastomotic leakage, but the stoma itself and its reversal procedure are associated with high morbidity of complications, and many defunctioning stomas eventually become permanent. Therefore, surgeons should carefully assess preoperatively and perform defunctioning stomas in very high risk patients. In addition, doctors should perform stoma reversal surgery more actively to prevent temporary stomas from becoming permanent.

Project description:BackgroundTo test the feasibility of laparoscopic approach in performing the simultaneous pelvic autonomic nerve preservation during standard anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer.MethodsPatients meeting appropriate eligibility criteria were recruited for the present study. The surgical procedures are shown in the video. The genitourinary function was evaluated on the basis of validated questionnaires including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI).ResultsA total of 112 patients (tumor, node, metastasis system stage I, n = 8; stage II, n = 54; stage III, n = 50; male, n = 58; female, n = 54; age [mean +/- standard deviation], 55.8 +/- 6.4 years) with good baseline genitourinary function were operated on with the intent of total preservation of pelvic autonomic nerves and curative resection of sigmoid colon cancer. The patients were prospectively followed (median time of follow-up, 18 months; range, 6-30 months). In patients with a successful nerve-preserving surgery (96.4%, n = 108), 104 patients completed the evaluation of urinary function. The median duration for indwelling urine Foley catheter was 3.0 days (range, 1.0-7.0 days). The voiding function after removal of the urine Foley catheter was good (IPSS, 0-7) in 98 (94.2%) patients, fair (IPSS, 8-14) in 5 (4.8%), and poor (IPSS, 15-35) in 1 (1.0%). Before and after nerve-preserving surgery, there were no significant changes of IPSS scores (3.20 +/- 1.72 vs. 3.68 +/- 2.82, P = .075, paired t-test) in the present patient series. Forty-four male patients completed the postoperative evaluation of sexual function, and ejaculation was ranked as good in 40 (90.9%), fair (decrease in ejaculatory amounts) in 3 (6.8%), and poor (retrograde ejaculation, failure of ejaculation) in 1 (2.3%), whereas the potency was good (IIEF, 60-75) in 41 (93.2%), fair (IIEF, 44-59) in 2 (4.5%), and poor (IIEF, 5-43) in 1 (2.3%). Moreover, before and after a successful nerve-preserving operation, there were no significant changes of IIEF scores (72.4 +/- 4.6 vs. 70.3 +/- 8.4, P = .082, paired t-test). For female patients (n = 42), the postoperative sexual function was ranked as good (FSFI score, 76-95) in 36 (85.7%), fair (FSFI, 58-75) in 4 (9.5%), and poor (FSFI, 4-57) in 2 (4.8%). Furthermore, there were no significant changes of FSFI scores (89.0 +/- 9.2 vs. 85.4 +/- 16.4, P = .122, paired t-test) before and after successful nerve-preserving surgery.ConclusionsUnder laparoscopy, we can clearly identify and preserve the pelvic autonomic nerves to retain genitourinary function in most patients undergoing oncologic resection of sigmoid colon cancer.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery using natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) colorectal surgery in patients with colorectal diseases. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective non-randomized trials and retrospective trials up to September 1, 2018, and used 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), lymph node harvest, surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and intra-abdominal abscess as the main endpoints. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the different study types [RCT and NRCT (non-randomized controlled trial)]. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the reliability of the outcomes. RevMan5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: Fourteen studies were included (two RCTs, seven retrospective trials and five prospective non-randomized trials) involving a total of 1,435 patients. Compared with CL surgery, the NOSE technique resulted in a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus, less post-operative pain, and fewer SSIs and total perioperative complications. Anastomotic leakage, blood loss, and intra-abdominal abscess did not differ between the two groups, while operation time was longer in the NOSE group. Oncological outcomes such as proximal margin [weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.49 to 1.42; P = 0.34], distal margin (WMD= -0.11; 95% CI -0.66 to 0.45; P = 0.70), lymph node harvest (WMD = -0.97; 95% CI -1.97 to 0.03; P = 0.06) and 5-year DFS (hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45) were not different between the NOSE and CL surgery groups. Conclusions: Compared with CL surgery, NOSE may be a safe procedure, and can achieve similar oncological outcomes. Large multicenter RCTs are needed to provide high-level, evidence-based results in NOSE-treated patients and to determine the risk of local recurrence.

Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.