Literature DB >> 36107416

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer: The LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Wei-Zhong Jiang1, Jian-Min Xu2, Jia-Di Xing3, Hui-Zhong Qiu4, Zi-Qiang Wang5, Liang Kang6, Hai-Jun Deng7, Wei-Ping Chen8, Qing-Tong Zhang9, Xiao-Hui Du10, Chun-Kang Yang11, Yin-Cong Guo12, Ming Zhong13, Kai Ye14, Jun You15, Dong-Bo Xu16, Xin-Xiang Li17, Zhi-Guo Xiong18, Kai-Xiong Tao19, Ke-Feng Ding20, Wei-Dong Zang11, Yong Feng21, Zhi-Zhong Pan22, Ai-Wen Wu3, Feng Huang11, Ying Huang1, Ye Wei2, Xiang-Qian Su3, Pan Chi1.   

Abstract

Importance: The efficacy of laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with low rectal cancer has not been established. Objective: To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for treatment of low rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery. Between November 2013 and June 2018, 1070 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 712) or open (n = 358) surgery. The planned follow-up was 5 years. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to March 2022. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The short-term outcomes included pathologic outcomes, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 30-day postoperative complications and mortality.
Results: A total of 1039 patients (685 in laparoscopic and 354 in open surgery) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median [range] age, 57 [20-75] years; 620 men [59.7%]; clinical TNM stage II/III disease in 659 patients). The rate of complete mesorectal excision was 85.3% (521 of 685) in the laparoscopic group vs 85.8% (266 of 354) in the open group (difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 4.5%; P = .78). The rate of negative circumferential and distal resection margins was 98.2% (673 of 685) vs 99.7% (353 of 354) (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.0%; P = .09) and 99.4% (681 of 685) vs 100% (354 of 354) (difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 0.5%; P = .36), respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13.0 vs 12.0 (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9; P = .39). The laparoscopic group had a higher rate of sphincter preservation (491 of 685 [71.7%] vs 230 of 354 [65.0%]; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-12.8%; P = .03) and shorter duration of hospitalization (8.0 vs 9.0 days; difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3; P = .008). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups (89 of 685 [13.0%] vs 61 of 354 [17.2%]; difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -9.1% to -0.3%; P = .07). No patient died within 30 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with low rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons was shown to provide pathologic outcomes comparable to open surgery, with a higher sphincter preservation rate and favorable postoperative recovery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899547.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36107416      PMCID: PMC9478880          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   33.006


  32 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic and conventional resections for low rectal cancers: a retrospective analysis on perioperative outcomes, sphincter preservation, and oncological results.

Authors:  Cem Gezen; Yunus E Altuntas; Metin Kement; Nihat Aksakal; Nuri Okkabaz; Selahattin Vural; Mustafa Oncel
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 1.878

3.  Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control.

Authors:  Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Erik van der Worp; Ellen Kapiteijn; Phil Quirke; J Han J M van Krieken
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz; Frederik Wenz; Stefan Post; Axel Matzdorff; Stephan Laechelt; Jörg T Hartmann; Lothar Müller; Hartmut Link; Markus Moehler; Erika Kettner; Elisabeth Fritz; Udo Hieber; Hans Walter Lindemann; Martina Grunewald; Stephan Kremers; Christian Constantin; Matthias Hipp; Gernot Hartung; Deniz Gencer; Peter Kienle; Iris Burkholder; Andreas Hochhaus
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 41.316

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.  Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  James Fleshman; Megan E Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio V George; Maher A Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen C Maun; George J Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew G Mutch; Steven D Wexner; Mark H Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David A Margolin; David W Larson; Peter W Marcello; Mitchell C Posner; Thomas E Read; John R T Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence After Laparoscopic-assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; Christopher S B Brown; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Current practice in Australia and New Zealand for defunctioning ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery with anastomosis: Analysis of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit.

Authors:  Vera E M Grupa; Hidde M Kroon; Izel Ozmen; Sergei Bedrikovetski; Nagendra N Dudi-Venkata; Ronald A Hunter; Tarik Sammour
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 3.788

9.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Phil Quirke; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Jean Couture; Chris O'Callaghan; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar; Richard J Stephens; David Sebag-Montefiore
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.