Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010–2015)

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer is controversial due to concerns of the oncologic efficacy and the difficulties of a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

Methods

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), for the period 2010–2015, perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) in patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LLAR or RLAR) were compared to open LAR (OLAR) after propensity score matching.

Results

26,047 patients underwent LAR: 4062 (16%) RLAR, 9236 (35%) LLAR, and 12,749 (49%) OLAR. Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups after matching. The conversion rates among patients undergoing LLAR and RLAR were 15% and 8%, respectively. In matched OLAR and LLAR patients, longitudinal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 4.1% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days, (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.5% and 7.0% (p = 0.112); OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 83.7%, and 72.0% and 95.9%, 86.3%, and 76.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). In matched OLAR and RLAR patients, longitudinal and CRM were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 3.9% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.1% and 7.9%, (p = 0.010); and OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.2%, 86.5%, and 77.1% and 97.5%, 89.4%, and 79.7%, respectively (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

In this national sample of propensity matched patients with rectal cancer who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic sphincter-saving rectal resection, only small differences in terms of resection margin status, length of stay, readmission, and overall survival were revealed. With acknowledgement of the limitations introduced by selection bias, our data indicate that each of the evaluated operative techniques results in acceptable outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AC Society (2019) Cancer facts & figures 2019. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2019.html. Accessed 30 Jan 2019

  2. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM, Visa J (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359(9325):2224–2229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09290-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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(20):2050–2059. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25(21):3061–3068. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.09.7758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70310-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66545-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, Brown JM (2013) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100(1):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8945

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(13):1346–1355. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.10529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Brown CSB, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (2019) 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(4):589–595. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70016-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14):1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, Lim SB, Lee TG, Kim DY, Kim JS, Chang HJ, Lee HS, Kim SY, Jung KH, Hong YS, Kim JH, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Oh JH (2010) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11(7):637–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70131-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(7):767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70205-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(16):1569–1580. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, Testini M, Marzaioli R, Patriti A, Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Gurrado A, Strippoli GFM (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 267(6):1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Parfitt JR, Driman DK (2007) The total mesorectal excision specimen for rectal cancer: a review of its pathological assessment. J Clin Pathol 60(8):849–855. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2006.043802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Faerden AE, Naimy N, Wiik P, Reiertsen O, Weyessa S, Tronnes S, Andersen SN, Bakka A (2005) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: difference in outcome for low and high rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2224–2231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0191-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cecil TD, Sexton R, Moran BJ, Heald RJ (2004) Total mesorectal excision results in low local recurrence rates in lymph node-positive rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 47(7):1145–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0086-6(Discussion 1149–1150)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.7027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Corbellini C, Biffi R, Luca F, Chiappa A, Costa S, Bertani E, Bona S, Lombardi D, Tamayo D, Botteri E, Andreoni B (2016) Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal cancer: medium-term comparative outcomes from a multicenter study. Tumori 102(4):414–421. https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim CW, Yoon YS (2016) Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(6):1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2586-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Silva-Velazco J, Dietz DW, Stocchi L, Costedio M, Gorgun E, Kalady MF, Kessler H, Lavery IC, Remzi FH (2017) Considering value in rectal cancer surgery: an analysis of costs and outcomes based on the open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach for proctectomy. Ann Surg 265(5):960–968. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Simillis C, Lal N, Thoukididou SN, Kontovounisios C, Smith JJ, Hompes R, Adamina M, Tekkis PP (2019) Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 270(1):59–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Nam BH, Sohn DK, Oh JH (2018) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267(2):243–251. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Boffa DJ, Rosen JE, Mallin K, Loomis A, Gay G, Palis B, Thoburn K, Gress D, McKellar DP, Shulman LN, Facktor MA, Winchester DP (2017) Using the National Cancer Database for outcomes research: a review. JAMA Oncol 3(12):1722–1728. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45(6):613–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin CC, Virgo KS, Robbins AS, Jemal A, Ward EM (2016) Comparison of comorbid medical conditions in the National Cancer Database and the SEER-medicare database. Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4139–4148. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5508-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This manuscript was not financially supported and has not been previously presented, published or being considered for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA

    Brandon C. Chapman, Ana Gleisner & Jon D. Vogel

  2. Department of Surgery, Saint Anthony’s Hospital, Lakewood, CO, USA

    Mark Edgcomb

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E. 17th Ave., C313, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Brandon C. Chapman

Authors
  1. Brandon C. Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Edgcomb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Gleisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon D. Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandon C. Chapman.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Drs. Brandon C. Chapman, Mark Edgcomb, Ana Gleisner, and Jou D. Vogel have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chapman, B.C., Edgcomb, M., Gleisner, A. et al. Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010–2015). Surg Endosc 34, 4754–4771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07252-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07252-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation