Literature DB >> 26441179

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial.

James Fleshman1, Megan Branda2, Daniel J Sargent2, Anne Marie Boller3, Virgilio George4, Maher Abbas5, Walter R Peters6, Dipen Maun7, George Chang8, Alan Herline9, Alessandro Fichera10, Matthew Mutch11, Steven Wexner12, Mark Whiteford13, John Marks14, Elisa Birnbaum11, David Margolin15, David Larson2, Peter Marcello16, Mitchell Posner10, Thomas Read16, John Monson17, Sherry M Wren18, Peter W T Pisters8, Heidi Nelson19.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26441179      PMCID: PMC5140087          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.10529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  20 in total

Review 1.  The total mesorectal excision specimen for rectal cancer: a review of its pathological assessment.

Authors:  Jeremy R Parfitt; David K Driman
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-10-17       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 2.  What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer?

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Phil Quirke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Passera; Alessandro Salvai; Simone Arolfo; Marco Ettore Allaix; Guido Schwarzer; Mario Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer.

Authors:  G A Porter; C L Soskolne; W W Yakimets; S C Newman
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sung-Bum Kang; Ji Won Park; Seung-Yong Jeong; Byung Ho Nam; Hyo Seong Choi; Duck-Woo Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Taek-Gu Lee; Dae Yong Kim; Jae-Sung Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Hye-Seung Lee; Sun Young Kim; Kyung Hae Jung; Yong Sang Hong; Jee Hyun Kim; Dae Kyung Sohn; Dae-Hyun Kim; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Effect of surgeon specialty interest on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  H R Dorrance; G M Docherty; P J O'Dwyer
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 7.  Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  S Trastulli; R Cirocchi; C Listorti; D Cavaliere; N Avenia; N Gullà; G Giustozzi; F Sciannameo; G Noya; C Boselli
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.788

8.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

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

Review 9.  Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Esther Kuhry; Wolfgang Schwenk; Robin Gaupset; Ulla Romild; Jaap Bonjer
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 12.111

Review 10.  Expert opinion on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer parallels evidence from a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Guillaume Martel; Alyson Crawford; Jeffrey S Barkun; Robin P Boushey; Craig R Ramsay; Dean A Fergusson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  265 in total

1.  Surgery: Limitations of prospective surgical oncology trials - a US view.

Authors:  Charles M Balch; Heidi Nelson; John E Niederhuber
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum].

Authors:  Carolin Kastner; Joachim Reibetanz; Christoph-Thomas Germer; Armin Wiegering
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 3.  Total Mesorectal Excision Technique-Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Joep Knol; Deborah S Keller
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-04-28

4.  A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Oncological, Cost, and Surgical Stress Analysis.

Authors:  Jun Lu; Hua-Long Zheng; Ping Li; Jian-Wei Xie; Jia-Bin Wang; Jian-Xian Lin; Qi-Yue Chen; Long-Long Cao; Mi Lin; Ru-Hong Tu; Ze-Ning Huang; Chang-Ming Huang; Chao-Hui Zheng
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Nunzio Velotti; Stefania Torino; Antonietta Vozza; Giovanni Sarnelli; Giovanni Aprea; Francesco Maione; Nicola Gennarelli; Mario Musella; Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Management of locally advanced rectal cancer in the elderly: a critical review and algorithm.

Authors:  Lara Hathout; Nell Maloney-Patel; Usha Malhotra; Shang-Jui Wang; Sita Chokhavatia; Ishita Dalal; Elizabeth Poplin; Salma K Jabbour
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-04

7.  Salvage TME following TEM: a possible indication for TaTME.

Authors:  F Letarte; M Raval; A Karimuddin; P T Phang; C J Brown
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.781

8.  Patient quality of life and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum.

Authors:  D Kamali; K Omar; S Z Imam; A Jha; A Reddy; M Jha
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  Does prolonged operative time impact postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection for cancer?

Authors:  E Duchalais; N Machairas; S R Kelley; R G Landmann; A Merchea; D T Colibaseanu; K L Mathis; E J Dozois; D W Larson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Current Status of the Management of Stage I Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Craig Howard Olson
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 5.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.