Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 557–564 | Cite as

Short term results of complete (D3) vs. standard (D2) mesenteric excision in colon cancer shows improved outcome of complete mesenteric excision in patients with TNM stages I-II

  • K. E. Storli
  • K. Søndenaa
  • B. Furnes
  • I. Nesvik
  • E. Gudlaugsson
  • I. Bukholm
  • G. E. Eide
Original Article



The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the new method of complete mesocolic excision (CME) with a high (apical) vascular tie (D3 resection) had an immediate effect compared with a conventional (standard) approach even in those patients without lymph node metastases.


A cohort of 189 consecutive patients with tumour–nodal–metastasis (TNM) stages I–II and a mean age of 73 years were operated on in the period from January 2007 to December 2008 in three community teaching hospitals. The CME approach (n = 89), used in hospital A, was compared to the standard technique used (n = 105) in two other hospitals, B and C. Lymph node yields from the specimens were used as a surrogate measure of radical resections. Outcome was analysed after a median follow-up of 50.2 months.


In-hospital mortality rate was 2.8 % in the CME group and 8.6 % in the standard group. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in the CME group was 88.1 versus 79.0 % (p = 0.003) in the standard group, and the corresponding disease-free survival (DFS) was 82.1 versus 74.3 % (p = 0.026). Cancer-specific survival was 95.2 % in the CME group versus 90.5 % in the standard group (p = 0.067). Age, operative technique, and T category were significant in multiple Cox regressions of OS and DFS.


Compared with the standard (D2) approach, introduction of CME surgical management of colon cancer resulted in a significant immediate improvement of 3-year survival for patients with TNM stage I–II tumours as assessed by OS and DFS.


Colon cancer Surgery CME Survival outcome 



Grants were obtained from the Western Norway Regional Health Authority, the University of Bergen, and Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital. The Departments of Pathology contributed with routine specimen examinations.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Storli KE, Sondenaa K, Bukholm IR et al (2011) Overall survival after resection for colon cancer in a national cohort study was adversely affected by TNM stage, lymph node ratio, gender, and old age. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1299–1307PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S (2009) Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation—technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis 11:354–364; discussion 364–355Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, Perrakis A, Finan PJ, Quirke P (2010) Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol 28:272–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ovrebo K, Rokke O (2010) Extended lymph node dissection in colorectal cancer surgery. Reliability and reproducibility in assessments of operative reports. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:213–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL et al (2003) Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 21:2912–2919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg R, Engel J, Bruns C et al (2010) The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in a population-based collective of colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg 251:1070–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sobin LWC (2002) International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM Classification on Malignant tumours, vol 6th ed. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iversen LH, Laurberg S, Hagemann-Madsen R, Dybdahl H (2008) Increased lymph node harvest from colorectal cancer resections using GEWF solution: a randomised study. J Clin Pathol 61:1203–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Punt CJ, Buyse M, Kohne CH et al (2007) Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:998–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storli K, Sondenaa K, Furnes B et al (2011) Improved lymph node harvest from resected colon cancer specimens did not cause upstaging from TNM stage II to III. World J Surg 35:2796–2803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hashiguchi Y, Hase K, Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Shinto E, Yamamoto J (2011) Optimal margins and lymphadenectomy in colonic cancer surgery. Br J Surg 98:1171–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    West NP, Morris EJ, Rotimi O, Cairns A, Finan PJ, Quirke P (2008) Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 9:857–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang J, Kulaylat M, Rockette H et al (2009) Should total number of lymph nodes be used as a quality of care measure for stage III colon cancer? Ann Surg 249:559–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson PM, Porter GA, Ricciardi R, Baxter NN (2006) Increasing negative lymph node count is independently associated with improved long-term survival in stage IIIB and IIIC colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3570–3575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilchik A, Nissan A, Wainberg Z et al (2010) Surgical quality and nodal ultrastaging is associated with long-term disease-free survival in early colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 252(3):467–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Storli K, Lindboe CF, Kristoffersen C, Kleiven K, Søndenaa K (2011) Lymph node harvest in colon cancer specimens depends on tumour factors, patients and doctors, but foremost on specimen handling. APMIS 119:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Færden AE, Sjo OH, Bukholm IR et al (2011) Lymph node micrometastases and isolated tumor cells influence survival in stage I and II colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 54:200–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merrie AE, Phillips LV, Yun K, McCall JL (2001) Skip metastases in colon cancer: assessment by lymph node mapping using molecular detection. Surgery 129:684–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wong SK, Jalaludin BB, Henderson CJ et al (2008) Direct tumor invasion in colon cancer: correlation with tumor spread and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1331–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    West NP, Kobayashi H, Takahashi K et al (2012) Understanding optimal colonic cancer surgery: comparison of Japanese D3 resection and European complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation. J Clin Oncol 30:1763–1769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sjövall A, Granath F, Cedermark B, Glimelius B, Holm T (2006) Loco-regional recurrence from colon cancer: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 14:432–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bertelsen CA, Bols B, Ingeholm P, Jansen JE, Neuenschwander AU, Vilandt J (2011) Can the quality of colonic surgery be improved by standardization of surgical technique with complete mesocolic excision? Colorectal Dis 13:1123–1129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. E. Storli
    • 1
  • K. Søndenaa
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. Furnes
    • 1
  • I. Nesvik
    • 3
  • E. Gudlaugsson
    • 4
  • I. Bukholm
    • 5
  • G. E. Eide
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Haraldsplass Deaconess HospitalUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  4. 4.Department of PathologyStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryAkershus University HospitalOsloNorway
  6. 6.Centre for Clinical ResearchHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  7. 7.Department of Global Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations