Association of hemicolectomy with survival in stage II colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

To compare the oncological survival outcomes of partial colectomy (PC) and hemicolectomy (HC) in patients with stage II colon cancer. A total of 18,795 patients with stage II colon cancer who underwent hemicolectomy (n = 12,022) or partial colectomy (n = 6773) from 2010 to 2019 were included in the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the two groups, and the threshold of harvested lymph nodes was determined. The results showed that age, gender, race, tumor site, scope of regional lymph nodes, postoperative chemotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy, harvested lymph nodes, and tumor size were significantly different between the PC and HC groups (all P < 0.05). The OS rate was slightly lower in hemicolectomy patients than in partial colectomy patients (69.9% vs. 74.5%, respectively, P < 0.001), but CSS was similar between the two groups (87.9% vs. 88.1%, respectively, P = 0.32). After propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, the OS and CSS rates in the two groups were significantly different (CSS 84.3% vs. 88.0%, P < 0.001; OS 62.2% vs. 72.5%, P < 0.001). The survminer R package determined that the optimum threshold for the harvested lymph node count in stage II colon cancer patients was 16. CSS was significantly different between patients with ≥ 12 lymph nodes harvested and patients with ≥ 16 lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.043). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression and survival analyses of stage II colon cancer patients showed that the survival benefit of stage II colon cancer patients receiving partial colectomy was superior to that of patients receiving hemicolectomy. Partial colectomy has significant oncological benefits over hemicolectomy in the treatment of stage II colon cancer patients, even in the case of pT4b or tumor deposits. Removal of 16 lymph nodes during colectomy for stage II colon cancer correlated with improved survival, and this threshold was more effective than the standard threshold of 12 lymph nodes in distinguishing between patients with good and poor prognoses.

Comparison of the short-term and long-term outcomes of three different types of inferior mesenteric artery ligation in left colonic and rectal cancers: a network meta-analysis.

To perform a network meta-analysis of the literature to assess the short-term and long-term outcomes of three operations for left colon and rectal cancer. Electronic literature searches were performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to August 2022. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using R software, ADDIS, and Review Manager 5.4 was conducted to compare outcomes of high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery(IMA),low ligation of the IMA with D2 dissection (LLD2), and low ligation of the IMA with D3 dissection (LLD3). Sensitivity analysis was applied to investigate the influence of each primary study on the final result of the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of data was estimated by using Egger's tests. Publication bias corrected by trimming and filling method. A total of 44 studies, 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 39 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. HL was associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage (HL vs. LLD2, OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-3.25, P = 0.001; HL vs. LLD3, OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.01, P < 0.001), and required a longer postoperative hospital stay (HL vs. LLD3, SMD = 0.28, 95%CI 0.09-0.48, P = 0.01).However HL showed an advantage in terms of operation time(HL vs. LLD3, SMD = - 0.13, 95%CI - 0.26 to 0.01, P = 0.04). LLD3 is most likely to rank best in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes after surgery for left colon and rectal cancer. Caution should be taken in the risk of anastomotic leakage when treating colorectal cancer with LLD2. HL, LLD2 and LLD3 provide similar overall survival rates for left colon and rectal cancer.

[Endoscopic metallic stent followed by elective laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of endoscopic metallic stent as a bridge to elective laparoscopic surgery in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction. METHODS: Clinical data of 63 patients with obstructive colorectal cancer who underwent endoscopic metallic stent insertion under radiologic monitoring at the Longyan First Hospital between June 2012 and August 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. After complete remission of the obstruction, all the patients received multi-disciplinary team (MDT) evaluation to make the further treatment strategy. The subsequent surgery included open and laparoscopic procedures, and the short-term efficacy of these two procedures was compared. RESULTS: There were 30 male and 33 female patients with age of 30 to 90 (mean 67) years, including 3 cases of ascending colon cancer, 4 cases of transverse colon cancer, 12 cases of descending colon cancer, 26 cases of sigmoid cancer, and 19 cases of rectal cancer. Only one patient (1.6%) developed sigmoid perforation at 3 hours after stent placement, and underwent emergency laparotomy with Hartmann procedure. The remaining 62 patients had bowel movements. After MDT evaluation, 10 patients (16.1%) were treated with palliative chemotherapy because they were unfit for surgery or for diffuse distant metastases. A total of 52 patients underwent radical surgery after a mean interval from stent insertion of 10 days (7-20 days), including open (n=18, including two cases with conversion to open surgery) and laparoscopy (n=34). The baseline data between open and laparoscopy groups were similar (all P>0.05). Primary anastomosis was successfully performed in all the patients without preventive stoma. Compared to open group, laparoscopy group had faster bowel movement [(2.88±1.06) d vs. (4.05±2.43) d, P=0.022] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(7.85±0.96) d vs. (9.82±4.41) d, P=0.002]. There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph node, and postoperative complication rate between two groups (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic metallic stent placement can effectively remove malignant colorectal obstruction, and thus enables surgeons to perform an elective radical surgery, avoiding emergency surgery with stoma and unnecessary surgery for patients with distant metastasis. In the era of enhanced recovery after surgery, the endoscopic metallic stent placement combined with laparoscopic procedures, as a less invasive alternative, is effective and safe.