Prognosis of patients with unresectable stage IV Colon cancer undergoing primary tumor resection: A multicenter study of minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic primary tumor.

AIM: To determine the factors affecting survival of patients with unresectable stage IV colon cancer with Primary tumour resection (PTR) as first treatment compared with those with conventional palliative chemotherapy. METHODOLOGY: Patient with minimally or asymptomatic stage IV colon cancer at diagnosis were identified from prospectively managed database in included centers from 2015 to 2020. Patient with and without PTR performed were followed up. Primary end point was overall survival. Risk factors affecting survival will be analysis by Kaplan Meier statistics and Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome will be stoma formation, complication rate and reoperation. RESULTS: 162 patients were included in analysis. 68 patients treated with systemic therapy PTR and 94 patients with tumour in-situ before systemic therapy. Baseline demographics including sex, age, functional status, tumour location, site of metastasis, RAS status were similar except there was slightly more liver metastasis on non-resection group (63.2% vs 79.8%). Cox regression analysis found PTR (HR 0.485, 0.302-0.778, p = 0.003)), bone metastasis (HR 3.163, 1.146-6.918, p = 0.004) commencement (HR 0.579, 0.345-0.971, p = 0.038) and completion of systemic therapy (HR 0.310, 0.178-0.539, p = 0.000) are independent factors predicting survival. The median overall survival after PTR vs tumour in-situ is 28 (IQR: 16-47) vs 12 (IQR:6-31) months (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Resection of primary tumour is an independent good prognostic factor in relatively asymptomatic stage IV CA colon patients with unresectable metastasis. Resection should be considered as long as the procedure is straight forward and do not impose significant morbidities with careful patient selection.

Should transanal total mesorectal excision be implemented in medium-sized colorectal unit? technical and oncological outcome.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the outcome of implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for low rectal cancer in a regional hospital and in comparison to laparoscopic (Lap) TME. METHODS: Consecutive patients with low rectal cancer of which the lowest border of the tumour was located beween 1 and 5 cm from the puborectalis who underwent TME at North District Hospital between January 2013 and December 2019 were included. Clinical, operative, and pathologic outcomes were compared between Lap TME and TaTME. The primary end point was complication profile. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients underwent Lap TME and 45 patients underwent TaTME for low rectal cancer. The conversion rate of the TaTME group was significantly lower than that of the Lap TME group (4.4% vs. 20%, P=0.029), but the operating time was longer (259 minutes vs. 219 minutes, P=0.009). The tumour location was significantly lower in the TaTME group, but the distal resection margins were adequate and not different between both groups. The TaTME group had higher incidence rates of prolonged ileus and urinary tract infection, but the other complications were similar between the two groups. The resection margin positivity rates of the TaTME and Lap TME groups were 2.2% and 5.7%, respectively (P=0.670). At a median follow up of 39 months, no abnormal early recurrence was detected. CONCLUSION: It is technically feasible and oncologically safe to perform TaTME in a medium-volume colorectal unit. Patients with difficult pelvic anatomy can benefit by reducing the risk of conversion and margin positivity rate.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancers: lessons learned from 579 cases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection at a single institution with 579 cases over a 15-year period. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has been shown to be safe with comparable oncological outcomes. However, the role of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is still controversial with few studies looking into long-term outcomes. METHODS: From May 1992 to April 2007, 579 patients underwent laparoscopic resection for rectosigmoid and rectal cancer. The clinical data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Data evaluated includes short- and long-term results, with survival outcomes calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Over this 15-year period, 316 patients had laparoscopic anterior resection for rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer, 152 patients had laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision, 92 patients had laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection, 17 patients had laparoscopic Hartmann procedure for rectal cancer, and 2 patients had proctocolectomy. The median age of these patients was 68 years (range, 35-95). The overall early and late operative morbidity was 18.8% and 9.7%, respectively. Conversion to open surgery was required in 5.4%of patients. Anastomotic leak rate was 3.5%. The median follow-up time was 56 months (range, 8-288). Port-site recurrence occurred in 2 patients. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 7.4% of patients after curative resection. The overall 5- and 10-year survivals for rectal cancer were 70% and 45.5%, respectively. The cancer-specific 5- and 10- year survival was 76% and 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study with large number of patients over a long follow-up period suggested that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is safe with good long-term oncological outcomes.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic colectomy has been proved to be both technically and oncologically feasible. However, the approach has been criticized for its procedural complexity and long operative time as a result of the loss of tactile feedback and absence of depth perception. The advent of hand-access devices offered a potential solution to these problems. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with open colectomy (OC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of cancer or ascending colon were recruited. Patients were excluded if they presented with surgical emergencies, had synchronous tumors on work-up, or when the tumor was larger than 6.5 cm in any dimension or preoperative imaging. Recruited patients were randomized to undergo either HALC or OC by the same surgical team. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, as well as disease recurrence and patient survival. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (HALC = 41, OC = 40) were successfully recruited. The 2 groups were matched for age, gender distribution, body mass index, and comorbidities. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the distribution of tumors and the final histopathological staging. HALC took significantly longer than OC (110 min vs. 97.5 minutes, P = 0.003) but resulted in significantly less blood loss (35 mL vs. 50 mL, P = 0.005). Patients after HALC experienced significantly less pain, required significantly less parenteral and enteral analgesia, recovered faster, and was associated with a shorter length of stay (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.004). With median follow-up of 28 to 30 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 74%, P = 0.90). CONCLUSION: HALC retained the same short-term benefits of the pure laparoscopic approach. The technique is associated with a slightly increased but acceptable operative time. Aside as a useful adjunct in complex laparoscopic procedures, the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is also a useful, if not more effective, alternative for patients with right-sided colonic cancer.