Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes.

Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center. Background: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome. Methods: We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes. Results: A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0-13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0-8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010). Conclusions: This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres. METHODS: All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan. RESULTS: Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024. CONCLUSION: Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME). Background: Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes. Results: In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME. Conclusions: cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). RESULTS: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P < 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P < 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P < 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSION: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. RESULTS: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. RESULTS: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

The role of transanal total mesorectal excision.

At inception, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was hypothesized to be a solution for several problems encountered in pelvic surgery, particularly for distal rectal cancer. The transanal part of the procedure is less hampered by patient related factors such as visceral obesity and a narrow bony pelvis and can thus overcome access and visualization problems encountered with a pure abdominal approach. Clearly, as for any new technique, a learning curve needs to be negotiated, ideally without unacceptable harm to patients. In experienced hands, TaTME might overcome challenges found in anatomically challenging rectal cancer patients as well as for other indications. The role of TaTME is not to replace, but rather complement its abdominal counterpart.

Influence of Minimally Invasive Resection Technique on Sphincter Preservation and Short-term Outcome in Low Rectal Cancer in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Transanal and robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision are techniques that can potentially overcome challenges encountered with a pure laparoscopic approach in patients with rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion and predictive factors of restorative procedures and subsequent short-term outcomes of 3 minimally invasive techniques to treat low rectal cancer. DESIGN: This is a nationwide observational comparative registry study. SETTINGS: Patients with rectal cancer were selected from the mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. PATIENTS: Patients with low rectal cancer (≤5 cm) who underwent curative minimally invasive total mesorectal excision between 2015 and 2018 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the proportion of restorative procedure, positive circumferential resection margin, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 3466 patients were included for analysis, of which 33% underwent a restorative procedure. Resections were performed laparoscopically in 2845 patients, transanally in 448 patients, and were robot-assisted in 173 patients, with a proportion of restorative procedures of 28%, 66%, and 40%. The transanal approach was independently associated with a restorative procedure (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 3.21-5.26; p < 0.001). Independent risk factors for a nonrestorative procedure, irrespective of the surgical technique, were age >75 years, ASA physical status ≥3, BMI >30, history of abdominal surgery, clinical T4-stage, mesorectal fascia ≤1 mm, neoadjuvant therapy, and having a procedure in 2015 to 2016 versus 2017 to 2018. The circumferential resection margin involvement was similar for all 3 groups (5.4%, 5.1%, and 5.1%). Short-term postoperative complications were less favorable for the newer techniques than for the laparoscopic approach. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because of the registry's variables and different group sizes. CONCLUSION: Patients with low rectal cancer in the Netherlands are more likely to receive a restorative procedure with a transanal approach, compared with a laparoscopic or robotic procedure. Short-term oncological outcomes are comparable between the 3 minimally invasive techniques. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B608. INFLUENCIA DE LA TCNICA DE RESECCIN MINIMAMENTE INVASIVA CON PRESERVACIN DE ESFNTERES EN LA RESOLUCIN A CORTO PLAZO EN CANCER DE TERCIO INFERIOR DE RECTO EN LOS PASES BAJOS: ANTECEDENTES:La excisión mesorrectal transanal y asistida por robot son técnicas que potencialmente pueden superar algunos obstáculos que podemos encontrar en un abordaje exclusivamente laparoscópico en pacientes con cáncer de recto.OBJECTIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la proporción y los factores de predicción positivos de los procedimientos restauradores y los resultados subsecuentes a corto plazo de tres técnicas mínimamente invasivas para tratar el cáncer de tercio inferior de recto.DISEÑO:Es un estudio comparativo observacional del registro nacional.ESCENARIO:Pacientes con cáncer de recto seleccionados del Registro Oficial de la Auditoría Holandesa Colo-rectal.PACIENTGES:Pacientes con cáncer de tercio inferior de recto (≤5 centimetros) sometidos a excision mesorrectal total mínimamente invasiva curativa.PRINCIPALES PARAMETROS DE EFECTIVIDAD:Proporción de procedimientos restauradores, margen de resección circunferencial positivo y complicaciones postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 3,466 pacientes para análisis, de los cuales 33% fueron sometidos a procedimiento restaurador. Las resecciones fueron laparoscópica en 2,845 pacientes, transanal en 448 y asistidas por robot en 173, con una proporción de procedimientos restauradores en 28%, 66% y 40% respectivamente. El abordaje transanal se correlacionó en forma independiente con el procedimiento restaurador (OR 4.11; 95% CI 4.11; 95% CI 3.21-5.26; p<0.001). Los factores de riesgo independientes para un procedimiento no restaurador, sin tomar en cuenta la técnica quirúrgica fueron: edad >75, American Society of Anesthesiologist ≥3, índice de masa corporal >30, antecedente de cirugía abdominal, Estadio clínico T4, fascia mesorrectal ≤1 millimetro, terapia neoadyuvante y haber sido sometido al procedimiento en 2015-2016 y no en 2017-2018. El margen circunferencial de resección involucrado fue similar para los tres grupos (5.4%, 5.1% y 5.1%). Las complicaciones postquirúrgicas a corto plazo fueron menos favorables para las técnicas nuevas comparadas con el abordaje laparoscópico.LIMTANTES:El estudio tiene la limitación de las variables dependientes del registro y la diferencia entre el número de pacientes en cada grupo.CONCLUSION:Los pacientes con cáncer de tercio inferior de recto en Holanda se tratan con mayor frecuencia mediante un procedimiento restaurador transanal en comparación con los abordajes laparoscópico o robótico. Los resultados favorables desde el punto de vista oncológico a corto plazo son comparables entre las tres técnicas de invasión mínima. Consulte Video Resumenhttp://links.lww.com/DCR/B608.

Sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer: striking the right oncological balance.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment options for low rectal cancer patients include the Abdominoperineal Resection and the sphincter saving Low Anterior Resection. There is growing evidence towards better outcomes for patients being treated with a Low Anterior Resection compared to an Abdominoperineal Resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short term and oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer treatment. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Rectal cancer patients from a single center in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients included all low rectal cancer patients (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) undergoing Low Anterior Resection or Abdominoperineal Resection between 2006 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: To identify differences in postoperative complications and disease free and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were included for analysis (Low Anterior Resection n = 170, Abdominoperineal Resection n = 92). Abdominoperineal Resection patients were significantly older (69 versus 66 years), had lower tumours (3 versus 5 cm), received more neo-adjuvant radiation, had longer hospital stay and more complications (wound infections and wound dehiscence). Low Anterior Resections had a significantly higher number of harvested lymph nodes (17 versus 12) however there was no difference in nodal involvement and R0 resection rate. No significant difference was found for recurrence, overall survival and disease free survival. LIMITATION: Retrospective review of cancer database and single center data. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of low rectal cancer Abdominoperineal Resection is associated with higher rates of postoperative complications and longer hospital stay compared to the Low Anterior Resection, with similar oncological outcomes.

Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies. CONCLUSION: Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.