•Long-term oncologic outcomes seem similar when emergency surgery is compared to stent placement.•Permanent stoma rate is lower when patients are initially treated with SEMS as bridge to ...surgery.•Sensitivity analysis shows opposite outcomes, with a trend towards worse survival in the SEMS group when only RCTs are taken into account.•Adequate experience with SEMS placement seems of importance for long-term oncologic outcomes.
This meta-analysis aims to determine the long-term oncological outcomes of SEMS as bridge to surgery (BTS) versus emergency surgery (ES). A systematic search without restrictions was conducted, and all studies comparing SEMS with ES reporting on long-term outcomes were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the appropriate tools. Twenty-one comparative studies were selected, reporting on 1919 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OR = 0·85 (0·68-1·08) and OR = 1·04 (0·68-1·57), respectively), disease-free survival (OR = 0·96 (0·73-1·26) and OR = 0·86 (0·54-1·36), respectively) and local recurrence rate (OR = 1·32 (0·78-2·23)). Permanent stomas were significantly lower in the SEMS group (OR 0·49 (0·32-0·74)). Sensitivity analysis on three-year survival showed opposite outcomes, with a trend towards worse survival in the SEMS group when only RCTs are taken into account. In conclusion, when in experienced hands, SEMS placement as BTS seems oncologically safe.
Background
The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. ...No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.
Methods
A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.
Results
45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32–75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36–54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.
Conclusion
Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the ...total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.
12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.
Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
Patients with cT1-2 colon cancer (CC) have a 10–20% risk of lymph node metastases. Sentinel lymph node identification (SLNi) could improve staging and reduce morbidity in future ...organ-preserving CC surgery. This pilot study aimed to assess safety and feasibility of robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected indocyanine green (ICG) in patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC.
Methods
Ten consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC were included in this prospective feasibility study. Intraoperative submucosal, peritumoral injection of ICG was performed during a colonoscopy. Subsequently, the near-infrared fluorescence ‘Firefly’ mode of the da Vinci Xi robotic surgical system was used for SLNi. SLNs were marked with a suture, after which a segmental colectomy was performed. The SLN was postoperatively ultrastaged using serial slicing and immunohistochemistry, in addition to the standard pathological examination of the specimen. Colonoscopy time, detection time (time from ICG injection to first SLNi), and total SLNi time were measured (time from the start of colonoscopy to start of segmental resection). Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were registered.
Results
In all patients, at least one SLN was identified (mean 2.3 SLNs, SLN diameter range 1–13 mm). No tracer-related adverse events were noted. Median colonoscopy time was 12 min, detection time was 6 min, and total SLNi time was 30.5 min. Two patients had lymph node metastases present in the SLN, and there were no patients with false negative SLNs. No patient was upstaged due to ultrastaging of the SLN after an initial negative standard pathological examination. Half of the patients unexpectedly had pT3 tumours.
Conclusions
Robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected ICG in ten patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC was safe and feasible. SLNi was performed in an acceptable timespan and SLNs down to 1 mm were detected. All lymph node metastases would have been detected if SLN biopsy had been performed.
IntroductionNowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of ...these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42021261125.
In an era of exploring patient-tailored treatment options for colon cancer, preoperative staging is increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate completeness and reliability of CT-based ...preoperative locoregional colon cancer staging in Dutch hospitals.
Patients who underwent elective oncological resection of colon cancer without neoadjuvant treatment in 77 Dutch hospitals were evaluated between 2011 and 2021. Completeness of T-stage was calculated for individual hospitals and stratified based on a 60% cut-off. Concordance between routine CT-based preoperative locoregional staging (cTN) and definitive pathological staging (pTN) was examined.
A total of 59,558 patients were included with an average completeness of 43.4% and 53.4% for T and N-stage, respectively. Completeness of T-stage improved from 4.9% in 2011–2014 to 74.4% in 2019–2021. Median completeness for individual hospitals was 53.9% (IQR 27.3–80.5%) and were not significantly different between low and high-volume hospitals. Sensitivity and specificity for T3-4 tumours were relatively low: 75.1% and 76.0%, respectively. cT1-2 tumours were frequently understaged based on a low negative predictive value of 56.8%. Distinction of cT4 and cN2 disease had a high specificity (>95%), but a very low sensitivity (<50%). Positive predictive values of <60% indicated that cT4 and cN1-2 were often overstaged. Completeness and time period did not influence reliability of staging.
Completeness of locoregional staging of colon cancer improved during recent years and varied between hospitals independently from case volume. Discriminating cT1-2 from cT3-4 tumours resulted in substantial understaging and overstaging, additionally cT4 and cN1-2 were overstaged in >40% of cases.
•Preoperative CT-based staging is used for patient-tailored colon cancer treatment•Completeness of preoperative staging registration improved during recent years•Completeness of preoperative staging was highly variable between hospitals•Understaging and overstaging of T-stage and N-stage occurred frequently•Reliability of staging did not improve with time or completeness
Introduction Older patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Existing CRC surgical prediction models have not incorporated geriatric ...predictors, limiting applicability for preoperative decision-making. The objective was to develop and internally validate a predictive model based on preoperative predictors, including geriatric characteristics, for severe postoperative complications after elective surgery for stage I–III CRC in patients ≥70 years. Patients and Methods: A prospectively collected database contained 1088 consecutive patients from five Dutch hospitals (2014–2017) with 171 severe complications (16%). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method was used for predictor selection and prediction model building. Internal validation was done using bootstrapping. Results: A geriatric model that included gender, previous DVT or pulmonary embolism, COPD/asthma/emphysema, rectal cancer, the use of a mobility aid, ADL assistance, previous delirium and polypharmacy showed satisfactory discrimination with an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.73–0.64); the AUC for the optimism corrected model was 0.65. Based on these predictors, the eight-item colorectal geriatric model (GerCRC) was developed. Conclusion: The GerCRC is the first prediction model specifically developed for older patients expected to undergo CRC surgery. Combining tumour- and patient-specific predictors, including geriatric predictors, improves outcome prediction in the heterogeneous older population.
Background
The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical ...consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity.
Methods
Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity.
Results
In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (
p
= 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424–4.611),
p
= 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (
p
= 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (
p
< 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%.
Conclusions
The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.
Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center. Background: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has ...comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome. Methods: We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes. Results: A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay 7.0 (6.0–13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0–8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010). Conclusions: This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME)
versus
primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).
Background:
...Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.
Results:
In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6%
vs
19.0%;
P
= 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0%
vs
32.8%;
P
= 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4%
vs
8.6%;
P
= 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4%
vs
12.1%;
P
= 0.25), overall survival (93.1%
vs
94.8%;
P
= 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7%
vs
81.0%;
P
= 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.
Conclusions:
cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.
PDF
