5-year outcome after complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of extensive lymph node dissection as performed in complete mesocolic excision are still debated, although recent studies have shown an association with improved long-term outcomes. However, none of these studies had an intention-to-treat design or aimed to show a causal effect; therefore in this study, we aimed to estimate the causal oncological treatment effects of complete mesocolic excision on right-sided colon cancer. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study involving prospective data collected from four hospitals in Denmark. We compared the oncological outcome data of patients at one centre performing central lymph node dissection and vascular division after almost complete exposure of the proximal part of the superior mesenteric vein (ie, the complete mesocolic excision group) with three other centres performing conventional resections with unstandardised and limited lymph node dissection (ie, non-complete mesocolic excision; control group). We included data for all patients in the Capital Region of Denmark undergoing elective curative-intent right-sided colon resections for stages I-III colon cancer, as categorised by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC; 5th edition), from June 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2013. Patients were followed-up for 5·2 years after surgery. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of recurrence after 5·2 years of surgery. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and competing risk analyses were used to estimate the possible causal effects of complete mesocolic excision. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03754075. FINDINGS: 1069 patients (813 in the control group and 256 in the complete mesocolic excision group) underwent curative-intent elective surgery for right-sided colon cancer during the study period. None of the patients were lost to follow-up regarding survival or recurrence status, and consequently no patient was censored in the analyses. The 5·2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9·7% (95% CI 6·3-13·1) in the complete mesocolic excision group compared with 17·9% (15·3-20·5) in the control group, and the absolute risk reduction of complete mesocolic excision after 5·2 years was 8·2% (95% CI 4·0-12·4; p=0·00015). In the control group, 145 (18%) of 813 patients were diagnosed with a recurrence and 281 (35%) died during follow-up, whereas in the complete mesocolic excision group 25 (10%) of 256 patients were diagnosed with a recurrence and 75 (29%) died during follow-up. INTERPRETATION: This study shows a causal treatment effect of central mesocolic lymph node excision on risk of recurrence after resection for right-sided colon adenocarcinoma. Complete mesocolic excision has the potential to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve long-term outcome after resection for all UICC stages I-III of right-sided colon adenocarcinomas. FUNDING: The Tvergaard Fund, Helen Rude Fund, Krista and Viggo Petersen Fund, Olga Bryde Nielsen Fund, and Else and Mogens Wedell-Wedellsborg Fund.

Pattern of Colon Cancer Lymph Node Metastases in Patients Undergoing Central Mesocolic Lymph Node Excision: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extended mesocolic lymph node dissection in colon cancer surgery seems to improve oncological outcome. A possible reason might be related to metastases in the central mesocolic lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the pattern of mesocolic lymph node metastases, particularly in central lymph nodes, and the risk of skip, aberrant, and gastrocolic ligament metastases as the argument for performing extended lymph node dissection. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE and PubMed were searched using the terms colon or colorectal with sentinel node, lymph node mapping, or skip node; lymph node resection colon; and complete or total and mesocolic excision. STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing the risk of metastases in central, skip, aberrant, and gastrocolic ligament lymph node metastases from colon adenocarcinomas in 10 or more patients were included. No languages were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The risk of metastases in the central mesocolic lymph nodes was measured. RESULTS: A total of 2052 articles were screened, of which 277 underwent full-text review. The 47 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were very heterogeneous, and meta-analyses were not considered appropriate. The risk of central mesocolic lymph node metastases for right-sided cancers varies between 1% and 22%. In sigmoid cancer, the risk is reported in ≤12% of the patients and is associated with advanced T stage. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design and heterogeneity, in terms of definitions of lymph node location, tumor sites, stage, morphology, pathology assessment, and inclusion criteria (selection bias), of the included studies were limitations. Also, anatomic definitions were not uniform. CONCLUSIONS: The present literature cannot give a theoretical explanation of a better oncological outcome after extended lymph node dissection. Consensus for a standardization of anatomical definitions and surgical and pathological assessments is warranted for future mapping studies.

Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Application of the principles of total mesorectal excision to colon cancer by undertaking complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been proposed to improve oncological outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether implementation of CME improved disease-free survival compared with conventional colon resection. METHODS: Data for all patients who underwent elective resection for Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage I-III colon adenocarcinomas in the Capital Region of Denmark between June 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2011, were retrieved for this population-based study. The CME group consisted of patients who underwent CME surgery in a centre validated to perform such surgery; the control group consisted of patients undergoing conventional colon resection in three other hospitals. Data were collected from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) database and medical charts. Patients were excluded if they had stage IV disease, metachronous colorectal cancer, rectal cancer (≤ 15 cm from anal verge) in the absence of synchronous colon adenocarcinoma, tumour of the appendix, or R2 resections. Survival data were collected on Nov 13, 2014, from the DCCG database, which is continuously updated by the National Central Office of Civil Registration. FINDINGS: The CME group consisted of 364 patients and the non-CME group consisted of 1031 patients. For all patients, 4-year disease-free survival was 85.8% (95% CI 81.4-90.1) after CME and 75.9% (72.2-79.7) after non-CME surgery (log-rank p=0.0010). 4-year disease-free survival for patients with UICC stage I disease in the CME group was 100% compared with 89.8% (83.1-96.6) in the non-CME group (log-rank p=0.046). For patients with UICC stage II disease, 4-year disease-free survival was 91.9% (95% CI 87.2-96.6) in the CME group compared with 77.9% (71.6-84.1) in the non-CME group (log-rank p=0.0033), and for patients with UICC stage III disease, it was 73.5% (63.6-83.5) in the CME group compared with 67.5% (61.8-73.2) in the non-CME group (log-rank p=0.13). Multivariable Cox regression showed that CME surgery was a significant, independent predictive factor for higher disease-free survival for all patients (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.83), and also for patients with UICC stage II (0.44, 0.23-0.86) and stage III disease (0.64, 0.42-1.00). After propensity score matching, disease-free survival was significantly higher after CME, irrespective of UICC stage, with 4-year disease-free survival of 85.8% (95% CI 81.4-90.1) after CME and 73.4% (66.2-80.6) after non-CME (log-rank p=0·0014). INTERPRETATION: Our data indicate that CME surgery is associated with better disease-free survival than is conventional colon cancer resection for patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma. Implementation of CME surgery might improve outcomes for patients with colon cancer. FUNDING: Tvergaards Fund and Edgar and Hustru Gilberte Schnohrs Fund.

One-step laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration and stone extraction versus two-step endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with stone extraction plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones: a randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial-the preGallStep trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stone extraction and papillotomy with subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy-the two-step approach-is the standard treatment of common bile duct stones in many countries. However, ERC is associated with a high risk of complications and more than half of patients require multiple ERCs. Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials find no major differences of the two-step approach in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative laparoscopic stone clearance-the one-step approach. Currently, there are insufficient data to ascertain superiority. METHODS: The preGallstep trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Eligible patients are patients with common bile duct stones (identified by magnetic resonance cholagiopancreatography), age 18 years or above with the possibility to perform both interventions within a reasonable time. We intent to randomise 150 participants allocated 1:1. The experimental intervention is the one-step approach. This consists of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The control intervention is the two-step approach which consists of ERC plus sphincterotomy (first step) and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (second step). Feasibility outcomes include the proportion of eligible patients not wanting to participate, reasons for rejection to participate, difficulties during the informed consent procedure, difficulties with randomisation, difficulties with data management, difficulties with blinding patient charts and forms and difficulties with maintaining blinding for the outcome assessors. The primary pilot outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one postoperative complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score grade II and above until 90 days after randomisation. This outcome will be used for a future sample size calculation of a larger pragmatic trial. Further, a range of clinical explorative outcomes will be assessed. DISCUSSION: As no sample size is estimated in this trial, there is a risk of wrongly assessing the effect on the patient-related outcome. The surgical procedures cannot be blinded. However, blinding will be employed in all other aspects of the trial, including the establishment of a blinded outcome adjudication committee with three independent assessors. Heterogeneity in screening, randomisation, diagnostics, treatment procedures, interventions and follow-up across trial sites may cause challenges in conducting a larger pragmatic trial. To monitor inter-site differences, we have implemented a central data monitoring scheme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT04801238 , Registered on 16 March 2021.

National clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease: 2021 recommendations from the Danish Surgical Society.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gallstones are highly prevalent, and more than 9000 cholecystectomies are performed annually in Denmark. The aim of this guideline was to improve the clinical course of patients with gallstone disease including a subgroup of high-risk patients. Outcomes included reduction of complications, readmissions, and need for additional interventions in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease, acute cholecystitis, and common bile duct stones (CBDS). METHODS: An interdisciplinary group of clinicians developed the guideline according to the GRADE methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were primarily included. Non-RCTs were included if RCTs could not answer the clinical questions. Recommendations were strong or weak depending on effect estimates, quality of evidence, and patient preferences. RESULTS: For patients with acute cholecystitis, acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended (16 RCTs, strong recommendation). Gallbladder drainage may be used as an interval procedure before a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with temporary contraindications to surgery and severe acute cholecystitis (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). High-risk patients are suggested to undergo acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy instead of drainage (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). For patients with CBDS, a one-step procedure with simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBDS removal by laparoscopy or endoscopy is recommended (22 RCTs, strong recommendation). In high-risk patients with CBDS, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is suggested to be included in the treatment (6 RCTs, weak recommendation). For diagnosis of CBDS, the use of magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound prior to surgical treatment is recommended (8 RCTs, strong recommendation). For patients with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, observation is suggested as an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2 RCTs, weak recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: Seven recommendations, four weak and three strong, for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease were developed. Studies for treatment of high-risk patients are few and more are needed. ENDORSEMENT: The Danish Surgical Society.