BackgroundThe optimal timing of resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases is still controversial. Retrospective cohort studies always had baseline imbalances in comparing simultaneous resection with staged strategy. Significantly more patients with mild conditions received simultaneous resections. Previous published meta-analyses based on these studies did not correct these biases, resulting in low reliability. Our meta-analysis was conducted to compensate for this deficiency and find candidates for each surgical strategy.MethodsA systemic search for major databases and relevant journals from January 2000 to April 2013 was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality, morbidity, overall survival and disease-free survival. Other outcomes such as number of patients need blood transfusion and length of hospital stay were also assessed. Baseline analyses were conducted to find and correct potential confounding factors.Results22 studies with a total of 4494 patients were finally included. After correction of baseline imbalance, simultaneous and staged resections were similar in postoperative mortality (RR = 1.14, P = 0.52), morbidity (RR = 1.02, P = 0.85), overall survival (HR = 0.96, P = 0.50) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.97, P = 0.87). Only in pulmonary complications, simultaneous resection took a significant advantage (RR = 0.23, P = 0.003). The number of liver metastases was the major factor interfering with selecting surgical strategies. With >3 metastases, simultaneous and staged strategies were almost the same in morbidity (49.4% vs. 50.9%). With ≤3 metastases, staged resection caused lower morbidity (13.8% vs. 17.2%), not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe number of liver metastases was the major confounding factor for postoperative morbidity, especially in staged resections. Without baseline imbalances, simultaneous took no statistical significant advantage in safety and efficacy. Considering the inherent limitations of this meta-analysis, the results should be interpret and applied prudently.
Background and Objectives Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but persuasive evidence on reducing surgical trauma is still lacking. This study compared robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections (APRs) for the risk of postoperative complications in low rectal cancer. Methods Between December 2013 and 2016, patients with rectal cancer ≤5 cm from anal verge, cT1‐T3 N0‐1, or ycT1‐T3 Nx stage, and no distant metastases were enrolled in a single‐center, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to robotic or laparoscopic APRs at 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was 30‐day postoperative complication rate (Clavien−Dindo grade II or higher) of the intent‐to‐treat population. The trial registration number is NCT01985698 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Results Totally 347 eligible patients were enrolled: 174 in robotic and 173 in laparoscopic group. Robotic APRs significantly reduced postoperative complication rate (13.2% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.013), also reduced open conversion rate (0% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.030), intraoperative hemorrhage (median, 100 vs. 130 ml; p < 0.001), 30‐day readmission rate (2.3% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.044), postoperative hospital stay (median, 5.0 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001), and improved urinary and sexual function. No significant difference was observed in long‐term oncological outcomes. Conclusions Compared with laparoscopic APRs, robotic APRs significantly reduced surgical trauma and promoted postoperative recovery.
3575 Background: The simultaneous resecting both colorectal cancer and liver metastases is a safety and efficacy surgical procedure for treating colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases (CRCLM).The safety and efficacy of robot-assisted simultaneous resection of CRCLM is unclear. Furthermore, what kind of selective CRCLM patients would obtain benefits from robotic procedure need identify. The aim of this study was designed to compare robotic procedure with open surgery, and establish robotic surgery indications to identify benefit population of CRCLM. Methods: CRCLM patients were evaluated and confirmed with surgical indication by multidisciplinary team (MDT), and randomized to two groups, robotic arm (n = 58) and open arm (n = 57). The primary endpoint is 3-year DFS, the second endpoints include short-term surgical outcomes, complications and safety. Results: A total of 115 patients were randomized between September 2013 and September 2016. Despite longer operating time, patients assigned to robot-assisted surgery had less blood loss (100ml vs. 150ml, P < 0.001), a shorter time to pass first flatus (3 d vs. 4 d, P < 0.001) and return to diet (3 d vs. 5 d, P = 0.002), shorter hospital stay with improved sexual function. Furthermore, followed benefits were observed in robotic arm versus open arm: lower serum C reactive protein (CRP) level on postoperative day 1 (POD1) (16 mg/L vs. 37 mg/L,P < 0.001), and POD3 (112 mg/L vs. 160 mg/L, P < 0.001), lower level of liver transaminase on POD5, and lower liver-related complication morbidity(10.3% vs 28.1%, p = 0.016). In addition, we identified and recommended selective CRCLM patients with the number of liver metastases < 3, maximal tumor size < 5cm, tumor not located in segment I to accept robotic procedure. Conclusions: We identified and recommended selective CRCLM patients to accept robotic surgery for treating liver metastases. Robotic surgery result in similar safety as open procedure, with shorter recovery time, decreased morbidity, and improved sexual function. Clinical trial information: NCT02642978.
Background: No.253 lymph node is the gateway to systemic metastasis for left-sided colorectal cancer. However, the value of D3 resection is still controversial. This study aimed to identify the incidence rate and prognostic value of 253LN metastasis in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) mainly through blood vessels and thus to provide theoretical basis for 253LN resection. Methods: From February 2012 to February 2019, a total of 281 patients who underwent curative resection for both primary and metastatic tumors were collected retrospectively. The clinicopathological and genetic characteristics were compared between 58 patients with positive 253LN and 223 patients with negative. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared with Kaplan–Meier method. Cox regression analysis and a forest plot were conducted for RFS. Results: The incidence of 253LN metastasis in left-sided CRLM was 20.64% (58/281). Those with 253LN positive were T4 stage, N2 stage, and D1/D2 lymph nodes metastatic. About 10.3% (8/78) 253LN positive patients were D1/D2 negative. The 253LN metastasis was an independent risk factor for relapse after curative surgery, but not for OS. Patients with 253LN metastasis had worse RFS, especially in female, adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, pT3, preoperative serum CA199 < 37 U/mL, bilobar liver metastasis, without preoperative chemotherapy, KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF wild type. Conclusion: The incidence of 253LN metastasis in left-sided CRLM is 20.64%, and skip metastasis rate is 10.3%. The 253LN status is an independent prognostic risk factor for RFS but not for OS after curative surgery. Routine resection of 253LN should be applied in curative surgery of left-sided CRLM.
132 Background: Most recently, there were 3 reports of prospective randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of primary tumor resection (PTR) for multiorgan metastatic colorectal cancer followed by chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone, but the results differed and unconvincing due to the prematurely study termination and research protocol changes. PTR was preferably performed for patients with asymptomatic synchronous unresectable colorectal liver-limited metastases (CRLMs) with conversion therapy purpose, including the CELIM, OLIVIA and our study (J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1931-8). This randomized phase III study investigated the superiority of preoperative chemotherapy prior to PTR for patients with asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs. Methods: Patients with asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs were randomly assigned to receive pre-PTR chemotherapy (arm A) or upfront PTR (arm B). Chemotherapy regimens of mFOLFOX6 plus cetuximab, mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or mFOLFOX6 alone were decided according to the RAS genotype. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, disease control rate (DCR), liver metastases resection rate, surgical complications and chemotherapy toxicity. Results: Between June 2012 and June 2018, a total of 320 patients were randomly assigned to arm A (160 patients) or arm B (160 patients). The cutoff date for survival data was June 2021, the median follow-up time was 36.2 months. Patients were well balanced. For the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS, median OS, and 3-year OS rates were 9.9 months, 28.0 months, and 37.0%, respectively. The median PFS in arm A was significantly improved compared with arm B (10.5 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95], 0.76; P = 0.013). Patients in arm A also had a significantly better DCR (84.4% v 75.0%; P = 0.037). The median OS was not significantly different (29.4 v 27.2 months; hazard ratio [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.01], 0.77, P = 0.058), and the objective response rates were also not significantly different (53.1% v 45.0%; P = 0.146). The actual resection rate of liver metastases was not significantly different (21.9% v 18.1%; P = 0.402). There were mild morbidities and no 30-day postoperative mortalities in both arms. The rate of complications was not significantly different (37.7% v 30.8%, P = 0.201). The incidence of Clavien–Dindo 3-4 complications also did not reach statistical significance (4.5% v 3.8%, P = 0.759). Overall the observed toxicity was mostly mild. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of predefined grade 3/4 events (42.2% v 40.4%, P = 0.744). There were no grade 5 events in either arm. Conclusions: For asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs, Pre-PTR chemotherapy improved the PFS compared with upfront PTR. Clinical trial information: NCT01307878 .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.