Complete mesocolic excision versus conventional surgery for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

AIM: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) lacks consistent data advocating operative superiority compared to conventional surgery for colon cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, analysing population characteristics and perioperative, pathological and oncological outcomes. METHODS: D3 extended lymphadenectomy dissection was considered comparable to CME, and D2 and D1 dissection to be comparable to conventional surgery. Outcomes reviewed included lymph node yield, R1 resection, overall complications, overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: In all, 3039 citations were identified; 148 studies underwent full-text reviews and 31 matched inclusion criteria total cohort 26 640 patients (13 830 CME/D3 vs. 12 810 conventional). Overall 3- and 5-year survival was higher in the CME/D3 group compared with conventional surgery relative risk (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.93, P = 0.016) and RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95, P = 0.011) respectively. Five-year disease-free survival also demonstrated CME/D3 superiority (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.86, P < 0.001), with similar findings at 1 and 3 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the CME/D3 and conventional group in overall complications (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.14, P = 0.483) or anastomotic leak (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81-1.29, P = 0.647). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis suggests CME/D3 may have a better overall and disease-free survival compared to conventional surgery, with no difference in perioperative complications. Quality of evidence regarding survival is low, and randomized control trials are required to strengthen the evidence base.