Simultaneous versus staged resection of rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases (RESECT)
- 10 Downloads
Staged resection is preferred to treat synchronous rectal cancer with liver metastases. Simultaneous resection of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases may potentially decrease postoperative complications, thereby improving quality of life, decreasing health care costs, and avoiding delays in postoperative chemotherapy administration. We evaluated the safety of simultaneous resection.
We searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies comparing simultaneous versus staged resection. Study selection, data abstraction, risk of bias (ROB), and quality of the evidence (QOE) assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcome was overall postoperative complications. The secondary outcome was postoperative complications in the intervention group. ROB and QOE were assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).
4456 abstracts were retrieved; 18 retrospective cohort studies reported postoperative complications in the intervention arm, with six comparing intervention (288 patients) to control (287 patients). The odds ratio (OR) for overall complications was 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64–1.35, and for major complications was 0.77, 95%CI: 0.40–1.50. Proportion of complications (intervention arm): 41%, 95%CI: 33–50%. ROB was moderate.
Simultaneous resection of synchronous rectal cancer with liver metastases carries a similar risk of overall and major complications compared to the staged approach. However, QOE is very low and a simultaneous approach ought to be pursued only in selected patients until better evidence is available.
KeywordsRectal cancer Synchronous liver metastases Simultaneous resection Surgical strategies Postoperative complications
Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations
National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
Quality of the evidence
Risk of bias
Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions
Special thanks to Dr. Aristithes Doumouras and Ming Bi for their assistance in translating selected abstracts and full-text articles.
This research did not receive any funding from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
A.E. Giles, M. Valencia, S. Parpia, E. Fu, L. Ruo, M. Simunovic, and P.E. Serrano declare that they have no competing interests.
- 10.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Rectal cancer; version 3. 2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2017.Google Scholar
- 15.The Cochrane Collaboration. Tool to assess risk of bias in cohort studies. 2012. http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/public/uploads/Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.Google Scholar
- 18.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Serrano P, Giles A, Valencia M, et al. REctal and hepatic reSEction for Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver MeTastases (RESECT): simultaneous vs. staged. A systematic review. 2016. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016047477. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.Google Scholar
- 20.Alexandrescu SH, Ionel Z, Croitoru A, Popescu I. Simultaneous resection of the primary colorectal tumor and liver metastases—a safe and effective operation. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2012;107:298–307.Google Scholar
- 41.American College of Surgeons. ACS NSQIP: Data collection, analysis, reporting. 2017. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip/program-specifics/data. Accessed 18 May 2017.Google Scholar