Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%; p = <0.001). 30-day mortality was 0.7% for the LRL group compared to 0.5% for the RLR group (p = 0.76). Mortality in longer periods among LLR and RLR amounted to 18.2% vs. 8.0% for 1-year mortality (p = 0.07), 34.1% vs. 26.7% for 2-year mortality (p = 0.13), and 52.3% vs. 48.3% for 3-year mortality (p = 0.46). The length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the incidence of individual complications in the LRL and RLR groups (p = 0.78). Laparoscopic or robotic approaches for colorectal liver metastases are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness. There are significant advantages to robotic surgery, although there is still no long-term evidence concerning overall survival, and the number of patients operated on using RLR remains small.

CXCL5 and CXCL14, but not CXCL16 as potential biomarkers of colorectal cancer.

Experts emphasize that colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are increasing. That is why its early detection is of the utmost importance. Patients with cancer diagnosed in earlier stages have a better prognosis and a chance for faster implementation of treatment. Consequently, it is vital to search for new parameters that could be useful in its diagnosis. Therefore, we evaluated the usefulness of CXCL5, CXCL14 and CXCL16 in serum of 115 participants (75 CRC patients and 40 healthy volunteers). Concentrations of all parameters were measured using Luminex. CRP (C-reactive protein) levels were determined by immunoturbidimetry, while levels of classical tumor markers were measured using CMIA (Chemiluminescence Microparticle Immunoassay). Concentrations of CXCL5 were statistically higher in the CRC group when compared to healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) of CXCL5 and CXCL14 were higher than those of CA 19-9. Obtained results suggest the usefulness of CXCL5 and CXCL16 in the determination of distant metastases and differentiation between TNM (Tumor-Node-Metastasis) stages, as well as the usefulness of CXCL14 and CRP combination in CRC detection (primary or recurrence). However, further studies concerning their role in CRC progression are crucial to confirm and explain their diagnostic utility and clinical application as biomarkers.

The Significance of CXCL1 and CXCR1 as Potential Biomarkers of Colorectal Cancer.

The CXCL1/CXCR2 and CXCL8-CXCR1/CXCR2 axes are under intensive investigation as they appear to regulate the progression and invasion of colorectal cancer (CRC). Growing evidence demonstrates the elevated expression of these proteins in CRC. However, a majority of relevant studies have been performed on CRC tissues using immunohistochemical techniques. Our study is the first to evaluate the diagnostic significance of serum CXCL1 and CXCR1 levels in CRC patients in comparison to well-established tumor markers, such as the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and markers of inflammation, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). Thus, the aim of our study was to assess whether circulating serum levels of CXCL1 and CXCR1 might be candidates for novel biomarkers in the diagnosis and progression of CRC. The study was performed on 76 subjects, including patients with CRC and healthy volunteers as a control group. Serum concentrations of CXCL1, CXCR1, and the classical tumor marker (CEA) were measured using immunoenzyme assays, while CRP levels were assessed with the immunoturbidimetric method. Serum CXCL1 levels were statistically significantly increased in CRC patients when compared to healthy subjects, and similar results were found for CEA and CRP levels. The percentage of elevated concentrations of CXCL1 and CXCR1 was higher than that of the classical tumor biomarker and increased in the combined measurement of these proteins with CEA. In addition, among all proteins tested, serum CXCL1 seems to be the best indicator in the differentiation between CRC patients with nodal involvement and patients without the presence of lymph node metastasis. Our preliminary results indicate the role of serum CXCL1 and CXCR1 in the diagnosis of CRC, particularly in the combined measurement with CEA.

The Significance of Selected C-C Motif Chemokine Ligands in Colorectal Cancer Patients.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms. Despite the advances in diagnostic tools and treatments, the number of CRC cases is increasing. Therefore, it is vital to search for new parameters that could be useful in its diagnosis. Thus, we wanted to assess the usefulness of selected CC chemokines (CCL2, CCL4, and CCL15) in CRC. The study included 115 subjects (75 CRC patients and 40 healthy volunteers). The serum concentrations of all parameters were measured using a multiplexing method (Luminex). The CRP levels were determined by immunoturbidimetry, and the classical tumor markers (CEA and CA 19-9) were measured using CMIA (chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay). The concentrations of all parameters were higher in the CRC group when compared to the healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) of all estimated CC chemokines were higher than those of CA 19-9. Interestingly, the obtained results also suggest CCL2's significance in the determination of local metastases and CCL4's significance in the determination of distant metastases. However, further studies concerning the role of selected CC chemokines in the course of colorectal cancer are necessary to confirm and to fully clarify their diagnostic utility and their clinical application as markers of CRC development.

Eotaxins and Their Receptor as Biomarkers of Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies. Despite the availability of diagnostic tests, an increasing number of new cases is observed. That is why it is very important to search new markers that would show high diagnostic utility. Therefore, we made an attempt to assess the usefulness of eotaxins, as there are few studies that investigate their significance, in patients with CRC. The study included 80 subjects (CRC patients and healthy volunteers). Serum concentrations of all eotaxins were measured using a multiplexing method (Luminex), while CCR3 was measured by immunoenzymatic assay (ELISA). CRP levels were determined by immunoturbidimetry and classical tumor marker levels (CEA and CA 19-9) and were measured using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). The highest usefulness among the proteins tested showed CCR3. Its concentrations were significantly higher in the CRC group than in healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of CCR3 were higher than those of CA 19-9. The maximum values for sensitivity, negative predictive value, and AUC were obtained for a combination of CCR3 and CRP. Our findings suggest the potential usefulness of CCR3 in the diagnosis of CRC, especially in combination with CRP or CEA.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients.

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = -0.34; 95%CI: -0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = -2.01; 95%CI: -2.90 to -1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.