Andreas Nordholm-Carstensen1, Kristian Kiim Jensen2, Peter-Martin Krarup3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark. andreasnordholm@gmail.com. 2. Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 4. Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature on transverse colonic cancer resection is sparse. The optimal surgical approach for this disease is thus unknown. This study aimed to examine laparoscopic versus open surgery for transverse colonic cancer. METHODS: This study was a nationwide, retrospective cohort study of all patients registered with a transverse colonic cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2013. Data were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, the Danish Pathology Registry, Danish National Patient Registry, and patients' records. Main outcome measures were surgical resection plane, lymph node yield, and long-term cancer recurrence and survival. RESULTS: In total, 357 patients were included. Non-mesocolic resection was more frequent with laparoscopic compared with open resection (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.29-4.60, P = 0.006). Median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher after open compared with laparoscopic resection (22 versus 19, P = 0.03). Non-mesocolic resection (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.25-4.79, P = 0.01) and increasing tumor stage (P < 0.001) were factors associated with recurrence. Cancer recurrence was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 4.32, 95% CI 2.75-6.79, P < 0.001). Overall mortality was, however, not associated with the surgical approach or surgical plane. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with a lower rate of mesocolic resection plane and fewer lymph nodes harvested, laparoscopic surgery for transverse colonic cancers led to similar long-term results compared with open resection.
BACKGROUND: The literature on transverse colonic cancer resection is sparse. The optimal surgical approach for this disease is thus unknown. This study aimed to examine laparoscopic versus open surgery for transverse colonic cancer. METHODS: This study was a nationwide, retrospective cohort study of all patients registered with a transverse colonic cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2013. Data were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, the Danish Pathology Registry, Danish National Patient Registry, and patients' records. Main outcome measures were surgical resection plane, lymph node yield, and long-term cancer recurrence and survival. RESULTS: In total, 357 patients were included. Non-mesocolic resection was more frequent with laparoscopic compared with open resection (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.29-4.60, P = 0.006). Median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher after open compared with laparoscopic resection (22 versus 19, P = 0.03). Non-mesocolic resection (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.25-4.79, P = 0.01) and increasing tumor stage (P < 0.001) were factors associated with recurrence. Cancer recurrence was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 4.32, 95% CI 2.75-6.79, P < 0.001). Overall mortality was, however, not associated with the surgical approach or surgical plane. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with a lower rate of mesocolic resection plane and fewer lymph nodes harvested, laparoscopic surgery for transverse colonic cancers led to similar long-term results compared with open resection.
Authors: C A Bertelsen; A U Neuenschwander; J E Jansen; A Kirkegaard-Klitbo; J R Tenma; M Wilhelmsen; L A Rasmussen; L V Jepsen; B Kristensen; I Gögenur Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Chee-Chee H Stucky; Barbara A Pockaj; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan; Daniel J Sargent; Michael J O'Connell; Robert W Beart; John M Skibber; Heidi Nelson; Jane C Weeks Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Iwona Głowacka-Mrotek; Magdalena Tarkowska; Tomasz Nowikiewicz; Michał Jankowski; Magdalena Mackiewicz-Milewska; Wojciech Hagner; Wojciech Zegarski Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Sara Sakjah; Anna Sofie Friis Olsen; Anders Kierkegaard Gundestrup; Pernille Wolder Born; Birgitte Bols; Peter Ingeholm; Jakob Kleif; Claus Anders Bertelsen Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.917