Complete mesocolic excision and extended (D3) lymphadenectomy for colonic cancer: is it worth that extra effort? A review of the literature
- 1.2k Downloads
Recent interest in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) or extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) for curative resection of colon cancer has been driven by published series from experienced practitioners showing excellent survival outcomes and low recurrence rates. In this article, we attempt to clarify the role of CME or EL in modern colorectal surgery.
A narrative review of the evidence for CME and EL in the curative treatment of colon cancer.
The principal of CME surgery, similar to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, is the removal of all lymphatic, vascular, and neural tissue in the drainage area of the tumour in a complete mesocolic envelope with intact mesentery, peritoneum and encasing fascia. Extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) is based on similar principles. Sound anatomical and oncological arguments are made to support the principles of removing the tumor contained within an intact mesocolic facial envelope together with an extended lymph node harvest. Excellent oncological outcomes with minimal morbidity and mortality have been reported. This has led to calls for the standardisation of surgery for colon cancer using CME. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic benefit of greater lymph node harvests and the evidence for an oncological benefit of CME is limited by methodology flaws and several potential confounding factors.
Although there is a reasonable anatomical and oncological basis for these techniques, there are no randomised controlled trials from which to draw confident conclusions and there is insufficient consistent high quality evidence to recommend widespread adoption of CME.
KeywordsComplete mesocolic excision Extended lymphadenectomy Colon cancer Cancer survival Cancer recurrence
Compliance with ethical standards
A. Emmanuel and A. Haji were involved in the concept and design of the review. A. Emmanuel performed the literature review and wrote the text. A. Haji reviewed the manuscript and made corrections and revisions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 3.Wibe A, Møller B, Norstein J, Carlsen E, Wiig JN, Heald RJ, Langmark F, Myrvold HE, Søreide O, Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2002) A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer—implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit. Dis Colon Rectum 45(7):857–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Siani LM, Pulica C (2014) Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision with Central Vascular Ligation in right colon cancer: long-term oncologic outcome between mesocolic and non-mesocolic planes of surgery. Scand J Surg 57:1169–1175Google Scholar
- 43.Rosenberg R, Friederichs J, Schuster T, Gertler R, Maak M, Becker K, Grebner A, Ulm K, Höfler H, Nekarda H, Siewert JR (2008) Prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer is associated with lymph node ratio: a single-center analysis of 3,026 patients over a 25-year time period. Ann Surg 248(6):968–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Nash GM, Row D, Weiss A et al (2011) A predictive model for lymph node yield in colon cancer resection specimens. Ann Surg 253(2):318–322Google Scholar
- 57.Hida J, Okuno K, Yasutomi M, Yoshifuji T, Uchida T, Tokoro T, Shiozaki H (2005) Optimal ligation level of the primary feeding artery and bowel resection margin in colon cancer surgery: the influence of the site of the primary feeding artery. Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2232–2237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar