Linh M Duong1, Hui Cai1, Martha J Shrubsole1, Christina E Bailey2, Kamran Idrees1, Xiao-Ou Shu1. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology and Endocrine Surgery, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article investigated whether robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has similar or different short- and long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 3049 patients from the National Cancer Database who received minimally invasive surgery (ie, robotic or laparoscopic surgery) for stage I HCC cancers between 2010 to 2015, of which 123 had robotic and 2926 had laparoscopic surgeries performed, were identified. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate all-cause mortality at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years after surgery, adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score-matched analyses were conducted to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. RESULTS: Robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (SRs) of 0.92, 0.75, and 0.63 compared with laparoscopic surgery SRs of 0.86, 0.60, and 0.45, respectively (P value <.01). Multivariate analyses showed that robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower 5-year total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%-0.93% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.62 and 95% CI, 0.42%-0.91% for end-treatment analyses). Similar results were found in propensity score matched analyses; robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival compared with laparoscopic surgery (HR, 0.64 and 95% CI, 0.43%-0.96% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.59 and 95% CI, 0.39%-0.90% for end-treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopic surgery in treating early-stage HCC and may be associated with improved long-term survival.
BACKGROUND: This article investigated whether robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has similar or different short- and long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 3049 patients from the National Cancer Database who received minimally invasive surgery (ie, robotic or laparoscopic surgery) for stage I HCC cancers between 2010 to 2015, of which 123 had robotic and 2926 had laparoscopic surgeries performed, were identified. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate all-cause mortality at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years after surgery, adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score-matched analyses were conducted to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. RESULTS: Robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (SRs) of 0.92, 0.75, and 0.63 compared with laparoscopic surgery SRs of 0.86, 0.60, and 0.45, respectively (P value <.01). Multivariate analyses showed that robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower 5-year total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%-0.93% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.62 and 95% CI, 0.42%-0.91% for end-treatment analyses). Similar results were found in propensity score matched analyses; robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival compared with laparoscopic surgery (HR, 0.64 and 95% CI, 0.43%-0.96% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.59 and 95% CI, 0.39%-0.90% for end-treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopic surgery in treating early-stage HCC and may be associated with improved long-term survival.
Authors: Lung-Yi Mak; Vania Cruz-Ramón; Paulina Chinchilla-López; Harrys A Torres; Noelle K LoConte; John P Rice; Lewis E Foxhall; Erich M Sturgis; Janette K Merrill; Howard H Bailey; Nahum Méndez-Sánchez; Man-Fung Yuen; Jessica P Hwang Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Andrea Ruzzenente; Fabio Bagante; Francesca Ratti; Laura Alaimo; Hugo P Marques; Silvia Silva; Olivier Soubrane; Itaru Endo; Kota Sahara; Eliza W Beal; Vincent Lam; George A Poultsides; Eleftherios A Makris; Irinel Popescu; Sorin Alexandrescu; Guillaume Martel; Aklile Workneh; Thomas J Hugh; Alfredo Guglielmi; Luca Aldrighetti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah; James Bundred; Derek Manas; Long Jiao; Mohammad Abu Hilal; S A White Journal: Scand J Surg Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 2.360
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Anne-Sophie Mehdorn; Florian Richter; Katharina Hess; Jan Henrik Beckmann; Jan-Hendrik Egberts; Michael Linecker; Thomas Becker; Felix Braun Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Bartlomiej Banas; Piotr Kolodziejczyk; Aleksandra Czerw; Tomasz Banas; Artur Kotwas; Piotr Richter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-17 Impact factor: 4.614