Grace C Lee1,2, Liliana G Bordeianou1,2, Todd D Francone1,2, Lawrence S Blaszkowsky3,2, Robert N Goldstone1,2, Rocco Ricciardi1,2, Hiroko Kunitake4,5, Motaz Qadan6,7. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 7B, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 2. Newton Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, 02462, USA. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 7B, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. hkunitake@partners.org. 5. Newton Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, 02462, USA. hkunitake@partners.org. 6. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 7B, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. MQADAN@mgh.harvard.edu. 7. Newton Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, 02462, USA. MQADAN@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the ACOSOG and ALaCaRT trials found that laparoscopic resections for rectal cancer failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of pathologic outcomes when compared with open resections, the COLOR II and COREAN studies demonstrated non-inferiority of clinical outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the value of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in rectal cancer surgery. We analyzed differences in pathologic and clinical outcomes between open versus MIS resections for rectal cancer. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent resection for stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015). Surgical approach was categorized as open or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to assess differences in outcomes and survival. Analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat fashion. RESULTS: A total of 31,190 patients who underwent rectal adenocarcinoma resection were identified, of whom 52.8% underwent open resection and 47.2% underwent MIS resection (31.0% laparoscopic, 16.2% robotic). After adjustment for patient, tumor, and institutional characteristics, MIS approaches were associated with significantly decreased risk of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94), increased likelihood of harvesting ≥ 12 lymph nodes (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21), shorter length of stay (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.53-0.62), and improved overall survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MIS approaches to rectal cancer resection were associated with improved pathologic and clinical outcomes when compared to the open approach. In this nationwide, facility-based sample of cancer cases in the United States, our data suggest superiority of MIS techniques for rectal cancer treatment.
BACKGROUND: While the ACOSOG and ALaCaRT trials found that laparoscopic resections for rectal cancer failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of pathologic outcomes when compared with open resections, the COLOR II and COREAN studies demonstrated non-inferiority of clinical outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the value of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in rectal cancer surgery. We analyzed differences in pathologic and clinical outcomes between open versus MIS resections for rectal cancer. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent resection for stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015). Surgical approach was categorized as open or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to assess differences in outcomes and survival. Analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat fashion. RESULTS: A total of 31,190 patients who underwent rectal adenocarcinoma resection were identified, of whom 52.8% underwent open resection and 47.2% underwent MIS resection (31.0% laparoscopic, 16.2% robotic). After adjustment for patient, tumor, and institutional characteristics, MIS approaches were associated with significantly decreased risk of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94), increased likelihood of harvesting ≥ 12 lymph nodes (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21), shorter length of stay (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.53-0.62), and improved overall survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MIS approaches to rectal cancer resection were associated with improved pathologic and clinical outcomes when compared to the open approach. In this nationwide, facility-based sample of cancer cases in the United States, our data suggest superiority of MIS techniques for rectal cancer treatment.