Skip to main content

Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection

Surgical Endoscopy volume 34, pages 3435–3448 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

While the ACOSOG and ALaCaRT trials found that laparoscopic resections for rectal cancer failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of pathologic outcomes when compared with open resections, the COLOR II and COREAN studies demonstrated non-inferiority of clinical outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the value of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in rectal cancer surgery. We analyzed differences in pathologic and clinical outcomes between open versus MIS resections for rectal cancer.

Methods

We identified patients who underwent resection for stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database (2010–2015). Surgical approach was categorized as open or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to assess differences in outcomes and survival. Analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat fashion.

Results

A total of 31,190 patients who underwent rectal adenocarcinoma resection were identified, of whom 52.8% underwent open resection and 47.2% underwent MIS resection (31.0% laparoscopic, 16.2% robotic). After adjustment for patient, tumor, and institutional characteristics, MIS approaches were associated with significantly decreased risk of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.94), increased likelihood of harvesting ≥ 12 lymph nodes (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04–1.21), shorter length of stay (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.53–0.62), and improved overall survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83–0.98).

Conclusions

MIS approaches to rectal cancer resection were associated with improved pathologic and clinical outcomes when compared to the open approach. In this nationwide, facility-based sample of cancer cases in the United States, our data suggest superiority of MIS techniques for rectal cancer treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Ota D (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Phelan M, Smith BR, Stamos MJ (2015) Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic abdominoperineal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58:1123–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, Group UMCT (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study G, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, Bonjer HJ (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, Peters WR Jr, Maun D, Chang G, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch M, Wexner S, Whiteford M, Marks J, Birnbaum E, Margolin D, Larson D, Marcello P, Posner M, Read T, Monson J, Wren SM, Pisters PW, Nelson H (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J, Investigators AL (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1356–1363

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, Group CIS (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, Choi HS, Kim DW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Kim TY, Kang GH, Chie EK, Kim SY, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Kim JS, Lee HS, Kim JH, Oh JH (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George VV, Abbas MA, Peters WR Jr, Maun DC, Chang GJ, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch MG, Wexner SD, Whiteford MH, Marks J, Birnbaum E, Margolin DA, Larson DW, Marcello PW, Posner MC, Read TE, Monson JRT, Wren SM, Pisters PWT, Nelson H (2018) Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269:589–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Brown CSB, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J, Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group Ai (2018) Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: the Australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 269:596–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu XL, Yan PJ, Yao L, Liu R, Wu DW, Du BB, Yang KH, Guo TK, Yang XF (2018) Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. Surg Innov. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618797822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rouanet P, Bertrand MM, Jarlier M, Mourregot A, Traore D, Taoum C, de Forges H, Colombo PE (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for sphincter-saving surgery: results of a single-center series of 400 consecutive patients and perspectives. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3572–3579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Singal AG, Higgins PD, Waljee AK (2014) A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 5:e45

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris EJ, Jordan C, Thomas JD, Cooper M, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Cameron D, Forman D, Jayne D, Quirke P, Trialists C (2011) Comparison of treatment and outcome information between a clinical trial and the National Cancer Data Repository. Br J Surg 98:299–307

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

GCL was supported by the National Institutes of Health T32 Research Training in Alimentary Tract Surgery Grant DK007754-13.

Author information

Author notes

    Affiliations

    1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 7B, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

      Grace C. Lee, Liliana G. Bordeianou, Todd D. Francone, Robert N. Goldstone, Rocco Ricciardi, Hiroko Kunitake & Motaz Qadan

    2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

      Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky

    3. Newton Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, 02462, USA

      Grace C. Lee, Liliana G. Bordeianou, Todd D. Francone, Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky, Robert N. Goldstone, Rocco Ricciardi, Hiroko Kunitake & Motaz Qadan

    Authors
    1. Grace C. Lee
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Liliana G. Bordeianou
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Todd D. Francone
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Robert N. Goldstone
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Rocco Ricciardi
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Hiroko Kunitake
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Motaz Qadan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to Hiroko Kunitake or Motaz Qadan.

    Ethics declarations

    Disclosures

    Grace C. Lee was supported by the NIH T32 Research Training in Alimentary Tract Surgery grant DK007754-13. Liliana G. Bordeianou is a consultant for Ethicon and legal consultant for CRICO, receives royalty fees from Up-to-Date, and receives research support from 11 Health, all outside the submitted work. Todd D. Francone is a consultant for Intuitive, outside the submitted work. Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky, Robert N. Goldstone, Rocco Ricciardi, and Hiroko Kunitake have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Motaz Qadan is a consultant for Olympus, outside the submitted work.

    Additional information

    Publisher's Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Hiroko Kunitake and Motaz Qadan are co-senior authors.

    Appendix 1: Definitions of commission on cancer facility types and facility regions

    Appendix 1: Definitions of commission on cancer facility types and facility regions

    Definitions of Commission on Cancer facility types
     Community Cancer Program Facility accessions 100–500 newly diagnosed cancer cases each year. Training resident physicians is optional
     Comprehensive Community Cancer Program Facility accessions > 500 newly diagnosed cancer cases each year. Training resident physicians is optional
     Academic/Research Program Facility accessions > 500 newly diagnosed cancer cases each year. Facility participates in training resident physicians in at least four program areas, including internal medicine and general surgery
     Integrated Network Cancer Program Multiple facilities providing integrated cancer care. At least one facility is a hospital. Training resident physicians is optional, and there is no minimum caseload requirement
    States contained in each United States facility region
     New England CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
     Middle Atlantic NJ, NY, PA
     South Atlantic DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
     East North Central IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
     East South Central AL, KY, MS, TN
     West North Central IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD
     West South Central AR, LA, OK, TX
     Mountain AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY
     Pacific AK, CA, HI, OR, WA

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Lee, G.C., Bordeianou, L.G., Francone, T.D. et al. Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection. Surg Endosc 34, 3435–3448 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07120-2

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07120-2

    Keywords

    • Rectal adenocarcinoma
    • Minimally invasive
    • Laparoscopic
    • Robotic
    • Survival