Hiroaki Niitsu1, Takao Hinoi2, Yasuo Kawaguchi3, Hideki Ohdan3, Hirotoshi Hasegawa4, Ichio Suzuka5,6, Yosuke Fukunaga7, Takashi Yamaguchi8, Shungo Endo9,10, Soichi Tagami11,12, Hitoshi Idani13,14, Takao Ichihara15,16, Kazuteru Watanabe17,18, Masahiko Watanabe19. 1. Department of Gastroenterological and Transplant Surgery, Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minamiku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. hiroaki_niitsu@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterological and Transplant Surgery, Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minamiku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. thinoi@hiroshima-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Gastroenterological and Transplant Surgery, Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minamiku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. 4. Department of Surgery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kagawa, Japan. 6. Department of Surgery, Ako Central Hospital, Hyogo, Japan. 7. Department of Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 8. Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan. 9. Digestive Disease Center, Northern Yokohama Hospital, Showa University, Yokohama, Japan. 10. Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan. 11. Department of Surgery, Nagano Municipal Hospital, Nagano, Japan. 12. Department of Surgery, Shohnan Tobu General Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan. 13. Department of Surgery, Fukuyama City Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. 14. Department of Surgery, Hiroshima City Hiroshima Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. 15. Department of Surgery, Nishinomiya Municipal Central Hospital, Hyogo, Japan. 16. Digestive Disease Center, Amagasaki Chuo Hospital, Hyogo, Japan. 17. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Kanagawa, Japan. 18. NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 19. Department of Surgery, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether open or laparoscopic surgery should be indicated for elderly patients with colorectal cancer and a poor performance status. METHODS: In those patients aged 80 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or greater who received elective surgery for stage 0 to stage III colorectal adenocarcinoma and had no concomitant malignancies and who were enrolled in a multicenter case-control study entitled "Retrospective study of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for elderly patients" that was conducted in Japan between 2003 and 2007, background characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes for open surgery and laparoscopic surgery were compared. RESULTS: Of the 398 patients included, 295 underwent open surgery and 103 underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between open surgery and laparoscopic surgery patients, except for previous abdominal surgery and TNM stage. The median operation duration was shorter with open surgery (open surgery, 153 min; laparoscopic surgery, 202 min; P < 0.001), and less blood loss occurred with laparoscopic surgery (median open surgery, 109 g; median laparoscopic surgery, 30 g; P < 0.001). An operation duration of 180 min or more (odds ratio, 1.97; 95 % confidence interval, 1.17-3.37; P = 0.011) and selection of laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 % confidence interval, 0.22-0.75; P = 0.003) were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis for postoperative morbidity. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery did not result in an inferior overall survival rate compared with open surgery (log-rank test P = 0.289, 0.278, 0.346, 0.199, for all-stage, stage 0-I, stage II, and stage III disease, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients with a poor performance status is safe and not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival.
BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether open or laparoscopic surgery should be indicated for elderly patients with colorectal cancer and a poor performance status. METHODS: In those patients aged 80 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or greater who received elective surgery for stage 0 to stage III colorectal adenocarcinoma and had no concomitant malignancies and who were enrolled in a multicenter case-control study entitled "Retrospective study of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for elderly patients" that was conducted in Japan between 2003 and 2007, background characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes for open surgery and laparoscopic surgery were compared. RESULTS: Of the 398 patients included, 295 underwent open surgery and 103 underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between open surgery and laparoscopic surgery patients, except for previous abdominal surgery and TNM stage. The median operation duration was shorter with open surgery (open surgery, 153 min; laparoscopic surgery, 202 min; P < 0.001), and less blood loss occurred with laparoscopic surgery (median open surgery, 109 g; median laparoscopic surgery, 30 g; P < 0.001). An operation duration of 180 min or more (odds ratio, 1.97; 95 % confidence interval, 1.17-3.37; P = 0.011) and selection of laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 % confidence interval, 0.22-0.75; P = 0.003) were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis for postoperative morbidity. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery did not result in an inferior overall survival rate compared with open surgery (log-rank test P = 0.289, 0.278, 0.346, 0.199, for all-stage, stage 0-I, stage II, and stage III disease, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancerpatients with a poor performance status is safe and not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Liz Lee; Madhukaran Jannapureddy; Daniel Albo; Samir S Awad; Buckminster Farrow; Charles C Bellows; David H Berger Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Masoud Babaei; Yesilda Balavarca; Lina Jansen; Adam Gondos; Valery Lemmens; Annika Sjövall; Tom Brge Johannesen; Michel Moreau; Liberale Gabriel; Ana Filipa Gonçalves; Maria José Bento; Tony van de Velde; Lana Raffaela Kempfer; Nikolaus Becker; Alexis Ulrich; Cornelia M Ulrich; Petra Schrotz-King; Hermann Brenner Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.889