Comparison of a robotic surgery program for rectal cancer: short- and long-term results from a comparative, retrospective study between two laparoscopic and robotic reference centers.

BACKGROUND: It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.

Simultaneous or staged resection for synchronous liver metastasis and primary rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in France and by the time of the diagnosis, 15-25% of patients will suffer from synchronous liver metastases. Surgery associated to neoadjuvant treatment can cure these patients, but few studies focus only on rectal cancer. This study was meant to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent a simultaneous resection to those who underwent a staged resection (rectum first or liver first) in the University Hospital of Tours, France. METHODS: We assessed retrospectively a prospective maintained data base about the clinical, pathological and survival outcomes of patients who underwent a simultaneous or a staged resection in our center between 2010 and 2018. A propensity score matching was used, considering the initial characteristics of our groups. RESULTS: There were 70 patients (55/15 males, female respectively) with median age 60 (54-68) years. After matching 48 (69%) of them underwent a staged approach and 22 (31%) a simultaneous approach were compared. After PSM, there were 22 patients in each group. No differences were found in terms of morbidity (p = 0.210), overall survival (p = 0.517) and disease-free survival (p = 0.691) at 3 years after matching. There were significantly less recurrences in the simultaneous group (50% vs 81.8%, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous resection of the rectal primary cancer and synchronous liver metastases is safe and feasible with no difference in terms of survival.

Complete Pathological Response Following Radiochemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Short and Long-term Outcome.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) followed by total mesorectum excision has become the gold standard for locally advanced carcinoma of the low and middle rectum. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of patients in complete pathological response (PR) following this treatment sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients were retrospectively included between 2005 and 2017 in an expert centre, with 3 groups formed, according to the PR: i) complete PR (absence of tumour cells on the surgical specimen ypT0N0), ii) partial PR (T or N downsizing) and iii) without PR. RESULTS: The complete PR rate was 13.1%. The complete PR group tended to develop less symptomatic fistulas compared to partial PR and without PR groups (5.8% versus 13.5% versus 18.7, respectively; p=0.607). The 5-year disease-free survival was increased for complete-PR patients (93% versus 79% versus 47%, respectively; p=0.0003) without an improvement in overall survival. CONCLUSION: Complete PR is associated with an improvement in survival without recurrence and without an improvement in the overall survival at 5 years.