Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

The oncologic merits of laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by only one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open treatment. During this period, total 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and other 163 patients to open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free 5-year survival after operative treatment and secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. We found there was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding average number of lymph nodes dissected, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate or cancer-free 5-year survival. Nevertheless, laparoscopic approach was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment with shorter hospital stay and less blood loss despite operation time was significantly longer. Meanwhile fewer patients receiving laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, pneumonia or anastomosis leakage, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes whether in total complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free 5-year survival and tumor recurrence, we favor patients receiving laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm8060875 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 875 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Chong-Chi Chiu ◽

Wen-Li Lin ◽

Hon-Yi Shi ◽

Chien-Cheng Huang ◽

Jyh-Jou Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Surgical Complications ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Tumor Recurrence ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Open Approach ◽

Significant Difference

The oncologic merits of the laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. During this period, a total of 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 163 patients received the open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free five-year survival after operative treatment, and the secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. Besides, surgical complications were also compared. There was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding the average number of lymph nodes dissected, ileus, anastomosis leakage, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate, or cancer-free five-year survival. Even though performing a laparoscopic approach used a significantly longer operation time, this technique was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment in terms of shorter hospital stay and less blood loss. Meanwhile, fewer patients receiving the laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, or pneumonia, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes, whether in several surgical complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free five-year survival and tumor recurrence, it is strongly recommended that patients undergo laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

Download Full-text

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery after insertion of self-expandable metallic stent as a “bridge to surgery” for left-sided obstructive colorectal cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.32.3_suppl.643 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 643-643

Author(s):

Yuhei Waki ◽

Kazunori Tokuda ◽

Masayoshi Obatake ◽

Miya Nagahashi ◽

Masanori Hotchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Metallic Stent ◽

Bridge To Surgery ◽

Short Term ◽

Obstructive Colorectal Cancer ◽

Expandable Metallic Stent ◽

Significant Difference

643 Background: Safety and validity of performing laparoscopic surgery after preoperative lavege using the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) for left-sided obstructive colorectal cancer were examined. We evaluated the short-term outcome of SEMS insertion compared with laparoscopic surgery without SEMS. Methods: Patients with left-sided colorectal cancer treated by either laparoscopic surgery with stent placement (n = 8) or laparoscopic surgery only (n = 42) in our hospital between April, 2012 and January, 2013 were registered. Short-term outcomes were compared with the two groups about patient characteristics (sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery), pathological data of patients (tumor location, size of tumor , tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, pTNM classification, UICC pathological stage), and operative and post operative results (procedures, conversion, operative time, blood loss, morbidity, solid food intake, postoperative hospital stay, total hospital stay). Results: Except for tumor size in the patient characteristic parameters, there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Conversion rate to laparotomy was higher in the stent group (2 versus 1, p = 0.013). There was no difference in operation time, blood loss and postoperative complications between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the long-term oncological result requires further investigation, laparoscopic surgery after self-expandable metallic stent is a safe and feasible treatment as a “brige to surgery” for left-sided obstructive colorectal cancer.

Download Full-text

Comparison of defecatory function after laparoscopic total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis versus a traditional open approach

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/rcsann.2017.0219 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 100 (3) ◽

pp. 235-239 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

MAS Khan ◽

D Jayne ◽

R Saunders

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Small Bowel ◽

Ileorectal Anastomosis ◽

Total Colectomy ◽

Postoperative Bleeding ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Paediatric Surgery ◽

Open Approach ◽

Defecatory Function ◽

Significant Difference

Introduction Total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis can result in significant defecatory frequency and poor bowel function. The aim of this study was to assess whether a laparoscopic approach is associated with any improvement in this regard. Methods A single institution retrospective review was undertaken of patients undergoing elective total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis between 2000 and 2011. Those undergoing emergency surgery and paediatric surgery were excluded. The primary outcome measure was satisfactory defecatory function after surgery. Results Forty-nine patients (24 male, 25 female) were included in the study. The median age was 48 years (range: 20–83 years). Laparoscopic total colectomy (LTC) was performed in 20 patients and open total colectomy (OTC) in 29 patients. Indications for surgery were slow colonic transit (n=17), colorectal cancer (CRC) (n=17), CRC with hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (n=8), inflammatory bowel disease (n=4) and diverticular disease (n=3). In the LTC group, 85% had a satisfactory defecatory frequency of 1–6 motions per day compared with 45% in the OTC cohort (p=0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in bowel frequency related to primary pathology (benign vs cancer surgery, p=1.0). Postoperative complications for both groups included relaparotomy (n=3), anastomotic leak (n=2), small bowel obstruction (n=2), postoperative bleeding (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Conclusions This study indicates that long-term defecatory function is better following LTC than following OTC and ileorectal anastomosis. The mechanism for this improvement is unclear but it may relate to the underlying reason for surgery or possibly to reduced small bowel handling leading to fewer adhesions after laparoscopic surgery.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening ◽

10.2174/1386207322666190119162352 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (10) ◽

pp. 718-724 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Wen-Cong Ruan ◽

Yue-Ping Che ◽

Li Ding ◽

Hai-Feng Li

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Adverse Event ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Clinical Prognosis ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

Download Full-text

The JPJDF has Synergistic Effect with Fluoropyrimidine in the Maintenance Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery ◽

10.2174/1574892815666200717141205 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 257-269

Author(s):

Xiaoling Fu ◽

Yanbo Zhang ◽

Lisheng Chang ◽

Dengcheng Hui ◽

Ru Jia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Synergistic Effect ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Maintenance Treatment ◽

Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽

Treated Group ◽

Induction Treatment ◽

Chemotherapeutic Regimen ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Maintenance chemotherapeutic regimen with low toxicity is needed for metastatic colorectal cancer. A recent patent has been issued on the spleen-strengthening and detoxification prescription (JPJDF), a traditional Chinese herbal medicinal formula with anti-angiogenesis effect. The clinical effect of JPJDF on the maintenance treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has not been evaluated. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of JPJDF in combination with fluoropyrimidine compared to fluoropyrimidine alone as maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We applied a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, single center clinical study design. A total of 137 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were recruited. Patients received either Fluoropyrimidine (Flu-treated group, n = 68), or Fluoropyrimidine plus JPJDF (Flu-F-treated group, n = 69) as maintenance treatment after 6-cycle of FOLFOX4 or FOLFORI induction treatment. The primary endpoints were Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were safety, Performance Status (PS) score and other symptoms. Results: The endpoint of disease progression was observed in 91.7% of patients. The PFS was 5.0 months and 3.0 months in the Flu-F-treated and Flu-treated groups, respectively. The OS was 15.0 months and 9.0 months in the Flu-F-treated and Flu-treated groups, respectively. Some common symptoms, such as hypodynamia, anepithymia, dizziness and tinnitus and shortness of breath, were improved in the Flu-F-treated group. There was no significant difference in the common adverse reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: JPJDF and fluoropyrimidine have synergistic effect in the maintenance treatment of mCRC.

Download Full-text

Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer ◽

10.1186/s12885-021-07823-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Sadayuki Kawai ◽

Nozomi Takeshima ◽

Yu Hayasaka ◽

Akifumi Notsu ◽

Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Significant Heterogeneity ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

First Line ◽

Anti Vegf ◽

Significant Difference ◽

High Incidence

Abstract Background Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC. Methods This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15). Conclusion Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

Download Full-text

Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Laparoscopic versus Open Approach

International Journal of Hepatology ◽

10.4061/2011/596792 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 2011 ◽

pp. 1-6 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

C. G. Ker ◽

J. S. Chen ◽

K. K. Kuo ◽

S. C. Chuang ◽

S. J. Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Liver Resection ◽

Average Length ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Operation Time ◽

Open Approach ◽

Full Diet ◽

Or Groups ◽

Significant Difference

In this study, we try to compare the benefit of laparoscopic versus open operative procedures.Patients and Methods. One hundred and sixteen patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LR) and another 208 patients went for open liver resection (OR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients' selection for open or laparoscopic approach was not randomized.Results. The CLIP score for LR and OR was 0.59 ± 0.75 and 0.86 ± 1.04, respectively, (). The operation time was 156.3 ± 308.2 and 190.9 ± 79.2 min for LR and OR groups, respectively. The necessity for blood transfusion was found in 8 patients (6.9%) and 106 patients (50.9%) for LR and OR groups. Patients resumed full diet on the 2nd and 3rd postoperative day, and the average length of hospital stay was 6 days and 12 days for LR and OR groups. The complication rate and mortality rate were 0% and 6.0%, 2.9% and 30.2% for LR and OR groups, respectively. The 1-yr, 3-yr, and 5-yr survival rate was 87.0%, 70.4%, 62.2% and 83.2%, 76.0%, 71.8% for LR and OR group, respectively, of non-significant difference. From these results, HCC patients accepted laparoscopic or open approach were of no significant differences between their survival rates.

Download Full-text

Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer

Archive of oncology ◽

10.2298/aoo0304255s ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. 255-263 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Borut Stabuc

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Colon Cancer ◽

Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Adjuvant Treatment ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Oral Fluoropyrimidines ◽

Significant Difference

Colorectal cancer alone accounts for around 200,000 deaths in Europe and represents a significant health problem. Although about fifty percent of patients are cured by surgery alone, the other half will eventually die due to metastatic disease, which includes approximately 25% of patients who have evidence of metastases at the time of diagnosis. Surgical resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes is the only curative therapy for colorectal cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III for colon cancer following curative resection has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence by 19-40% and of death by 16-33%. Today, 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin given for six months may represent the best adjuvant treatment available The contribution of levamisole to adjuvant treatment seems to be marginal, if any. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for the patients with Dukes B colon cancer is less clear. A meta-analysis of 1,381 patients with advanced colorectal cancer showed a significant increase in response rate with the bolus 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin versus 5-fluoroUracil alone but no significant difference in median survival. Continuous infusion allows higher doses of 5-FU than rapid bolus infusion and improves response rate survival and time to progression. Oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine and Uracil/Tegafur [UFT]) are as active as intravenous fluoropyrimidines. Compared to intravenous 5FU, oral fluoropyrimidines have safety advantages clinical benefits, and are more convenient for patients. Phase III randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer demonstrate the significant superiority of combining irinotecan with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin or oxaliplatin with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin over the same 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin alone. Several phase II studies have shown that the combination of the oral fluoropyrimidines plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin is very active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials with agents acting on novel targets in colorectal cancer are progressing rapidly, including doxifluridine, new inhibitors of thymidylate synthase (ZD9331), oral camptothecins (Rubitecan), multitarget antifolate antimetabolite (Premetrexet), inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (Cetuximab), COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) and farnesyltransferaze inhibitors (Zarnestra). However, a few randomized trials failed to show a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer.

Download Full-text

Improvement of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patient Survival: Single Institution Experience

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers11030369 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 369 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Elisabetta Fenocchio ◽

Federica Colombi ◽

Maria Grazia Calella ◽

Roberto Filippi ◽

Ilaria Depetris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Patient Survival ◽

Colorectal Cancer Patient ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Integrated Approach ◽

Metastatic Tumour ◽

Single Institution ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patient

The survival rates of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have improved in recent years. We analysed the survival of mCRC patients followed at a single institution over the last 17 years. We retrospectively collected data from 899 mCRC patients treated from 2001 to 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the year of diagnosis: Cohort A (2001–2006) and Cohort B (2007–2014). A total of 788 patients were analysed. The median survival of the whole population was 32.0 months with a significant difference between Cohort A and B (29.2 vs. 33.5 months; p = 0.041). Surgical procedures significantly increased in Cohort B, however, no significant changes in survival were observed in patients undergoing surgery (58.9 months Cohort A vs. 58.2 months Cohort B, p = 0.822). Similarly, we did not demonstrate survival improvement in patients treated with systemic therapy alone (18.9 months Cohort A vs. 20.7 months Cohort B; p = 0.948). At the multivariate analysis, right-sided primary and synchronous metastatic tumour were found to be independent unfavorable prognostic factors. Improvements of mCRC patient survival might relate to integrated approach, with more patients undergoing extra-hepatic surgery. The medical approach seems to have had a more favourable impact on subgroups characterized by a worse prognosis.

Download Full-text

Mutational Analysis of Patients With Colorectal Cancer in CALGB/SWOG 80405 Identifies New Roles of Microsatellite Instability and Tumor Mutational Burden for Patient Outcome

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.18.01798 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (14) ◽

pp. 1217-1227 ◽

Cited By ~ 69

Author(s):

Federico Innocenti ◽

Fang-Shu Ou ◽

Xueping Qu ◽

Tyler J. Zemla ◽

Donna Niedzwiecki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Microsatellite Instability ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Mutational Analysis ◽

Gene Mutations ◽

Phase Iii ◽

First Line ◽

Mutational Burden ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Tumor Mutational Burden

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.

Download Full-text