Is Robotic Surgery Beneficial for Rectal Cancer Patients with Unfavorable Characteristic After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of robot and laparoscopic surgeries for patients with advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by radical resection. METHODS: This study analyzed 3240 rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery from 2008 to 2019. Among them, 1204 patients who received nCRT (robotic, n = 316; laparoscopic, n = 888) were analyzed. The oncological outcome according to the number of unfavorable factors (male, body mass index ≥ 25, receiving CCRT) present in patients also was analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups. RESULTS: After PSM, two groups showed similar demographics and pathological results. After PSM analysis, the robotic group showed higher 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival rates than the laparoscopic group, whereas 5-year overall survival and distant recurrence-free survival rates were similar between the two groups. In addition, by comparing survival rates for each yp stage, it was found 5-year DFS and local recurrence-free survival of the robotic group in yp stage III were significantly higher than those of the laparoscopic group. Five-year DFS was conducted according to the number of unfavorable factors (male, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, and undergoing nCRT) as a subgroup analysis. In patients with all three unfavorable factors, the robotic group showed significantly higher DFS than the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach for rectal cancer after nCRT, especially for patients with yp stage III and unfavorable factors, have the advantage of improving oncologic outcomes even for surgeons specializing in colorectal cancer.

Revised Nodal Staging Integrating Tumor Deposit Counts With Positive Lymph Nodes in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the prognostic value of tumor deposit (TD) counts and incorporated them with the number of positive lymph nodes to develop a revised nodal staging. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging on colon cancer includes the TDs only for nodenegative patients, as N1c, and their counts are not considered. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with stage III colorectal cancer who underwent curative resections between January 2010 and December 2019. The patients were grouped as TD 0, TD 1, TD 2, or TD ≥3 based on their TD counts. Disease-free survival and overall survival were compared. RESULTS: Of 2446 eligible stage III patients, 658 (26.9%) had TDs. Among them, 500 (76.0%) patients concurrently had positive lymph nodes (LNs). TD counts were significantly related to worse disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival regardless of pT stages or the number of positive LNs. The patients were restaged based on the integrated number of TD counts and positive LNs. The N3 stage, which had ≥10 integrated TDs and positive LNs, was newly classified. Among the patients who completed 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, those upstaged to N2 from an initial stage of N1 experienced significantly worse DFS than those confirmed as N1 in the revised N staging. The newly N3-staged patients showed significantly worse DFS than the patients initially staged as N2. CONCLUSIONS: Revised N staging using the integrated number of TD counts and positive LNs could predict DFS more accurately than current staging. It would also draw greater attention to the patients with high-risk stage III colon cancer staged as N3.

Association Between Distress at Diagnosis and Disease-free Survival Among Patients With Resectable Colon Cancer: A Large Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between distress at initial diagnosis and disease-free survival in patients with resectable colon cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Considerable research has examined the psychological impact of having a confirmed diagnosis of cancer, but relatively limited research has examined the impact of distress during the diagnostic phase on oncological outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. We included newly diagnosed colon cancer patients who had resectable surgery and underwent distress screening between July 2014 and July 2021 (N=1,362). The Korean versions of the Distress Thermometer were used to assess distress and related problems. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on distress score: low (<4), moderate (4-7), and severe (≥8). The primary outcome was disease-free survival. RESULTS: The mean distress was 5.1 (SD=2.4) and 61%, and 15% of patients had moderate and severe distress at diagnosis, respectively. The severe distress group was more likely to report fear, sadness, and concerns regarding insurance/finance, work, and childcare than the low distress group. Compared with the low distress group, the severe distress group had worse disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio=1.84, 95% CI=1.03, 3.29). The association was more evident in patients with stage IV disease (Hazard Ratio=2.53, 95% CI=1.02, 6.25). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients with colon cancer experience distress at diagnosis, and severe distress has a negative impact on oncologic outcomes. Active monitoring and appropriate management of distress at diagnosis should be adopted at clinical settings.

Effectiveness of personalized treatment stage-adjusted digital therapeutics in colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer survivors often experience decline in physical performance and poor quality of life after surgery and during adjuvant therapies. In these patients, preserving skeletal muscle mass and high-quality nourishment are essential to reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life and cancer-specific survival. Digital therapeutics have emerged as an encouraging tool for cancer survivors. However, to the best of our knowledge, randomized clinical trials applying personalized mobile application and smart bands as a supportive tool to several colorectal patients remain to be conducted, intervening immediately after the surgical treatment. METHODS: This study is a prospective, multi-center, single-blinded, two-armed, randomized controlled trial. The study aims to recruit 324 patients from three hospitals. Patients will be randomly allocated to two groups for one year of rehabilitation, starting immediately after the operation: a digital healthcare system rehabilitation (intervention) group and a conventional education-based rehabilitation (control) group. The primary objective of this protocol is to clarify the effect of digital healthcare system rehabilitation on skeletal muscle mass increment in patients with colorectal cancer. The secondary outcomes would be the improvement in quality of life measured by EORTC QLQ C30 and CR29, enhanced physical fitness level measured by grip strength test, 30-sec chair stand test and 2-min walk test, increased physical activity measured by IPAQ-SF, alleviated pain intensity, decreased severity of the LARS, weight, and fat mass. These measurements will be held on enrollment and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter. DISCUSSION: This study will compare the effect of personalized treatment stage-adjusted digital health interventions on immediate postoperative rehabilitation with that of conventional education-based rehabilitation in patients with colorectal cancer. This will be the first randomized clinical trial performing immediate postoperative rehabilitation in a large number of patients with colorectal cancer with a tailored digital health intervention, modified according to the treatment phase and patient condition. The study will add foundations for the application of comprehensive digital healthcare programs focusing on individuality in postoperative rehabilitation of patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05046756. Registered on 11 May 2021.

Prognostic Impact of Lymphatic Invasion, Venous Invasion, Perineural Invasion, and Tumor Budding in Rectal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic implications of lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding in rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the prognostic impact of lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Samsung Medical Center. Grouping was performed on the basis of lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding status: no-risk group with 0 factor (n = 299), low-risk group with any 1 factor (n = 131), intermediate-risk group with any 2 factors (n = 75), and high-risk group with 3 or 4 risk factors (n = 32). PATIENTS: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, followed by radical operation for locally advanced rectal cancer, from January 2010 to December 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Disease-free and overall survival varied significantly between the groups in stage III ( p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Disease-free survival in stage I differed between the no-risk group and the intermediate-risk group ( p = 0.026). In stage II, disease-free and overall survival differed between the no-risk group and the intermediate-risk group ( p = 0.010 and p = 0.045). In multivariable analysis, risk grouping was an independent prognostic factor for both disease-free (p <0.001) and overall survival ( p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The inherent limitations are associated with the retrospective single-center study design. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding are strong prognostic factors for disease-free and overall survival in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, adjuvant chemotherapy is strongly recommended in patients with positive lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B919 . IMPACTO PRONSTICO DE LA INVASIN LINFTICA, LA INVASIN VENOSA, LA INVASIN PERINEURAL Y LA GEMACIN TUMORAL EN EL CNCER DE RECTO TRATADO CON QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE SEGUIDA DE ESCISIN TOTAL DEL MESORRECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Se desconocen las implicaciones diagnósticas de la invasión linfática, la invasión venosa, la invasión perineural y el crecimiento tumoral en el cáncer de recto tratado con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.OBJETIVO:Este estudio fue diseñado para identificar el impacto pronóstico de la invasión linfática, la invasión venosa, la invasión perineural y la gemación tumoral en el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado tratado con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO:Este estudio fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en el Centro Médico Samsung. La agrupación se realizó en función de la invasión linfática, la invasión venosa, la invasión perineural y el estado de crecimiento del tumor: grupo sin riesgo con 0 factores (n = 299), grupo de bajo riesgo con cualquier factor 1 (n = 131), grupo de riesgo intermedio con 2 factores cualquiera (n = 75), y un grupo de alto riesgo con 3 o 4 factores de riesgo (n = 32).PACIENTES:Se incluyeron un total de 537 pacientes que se sometieron a quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de operación radical por cáncer de recto localmente avanzado desde enero de 2010 hasta diciembre de 2015.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las principales medidas de resultado fueron la supervivencia libre de enfermedad y la supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 77 meses, y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los 5 años y la supervivencia general a los 5 años variaron significativamente entre los grupos en el estadio III (p < 0,001, p < 0,001). La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los 5 años en el estadio I difirió entre el grupo sin riesgo y el grupo de riesgo intermedio (p = 0,026). En el estadio II, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años y la supervivencia global a 5 años difirieron entre el grupo sin riesgo y el grupo de riesgo intermedio p = 0,010, p = 0,045). En el análisis multivariable, la agrupación de riesgo fue un factor pronóstico independiente tanto para la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (p < 0,001) como para la supervivencia global (p < 0,001).LIMITACIÓN:Las limitaciones inherentes están asociadas con el diseño de estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro..CONCLUSIÓN:La invasión linfática, la invasión venosa, la invasión perineural y la gemación tumoral son fuertes factores pronósticos para la supervivencia libre de enfermedad y la supervivencia general en el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado tratado con quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Por lo tanto, se recomienda fuertemente la quimioterapia adyuvante en pacientes con invasión linfática positiva, invasión venosa, invasión perineural y tumor en en formacion. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B919 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Determining Which Patients Require Preoperative Pelvic Radiotherapy Before Curative-Intent Surgery and/or Ablation for Metastatic Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the optimal indications for preoperative pelvic radiotherapy (RT) in patients with metastatic rectal cancer who underwent curative-intent surgical resection and/or ablation. METHODS: Between January 2000 and October 2019, 246 patients who met our inclusion criteria were enrolled. Preoperative RT was performed in 22 patients (8.9%). Lower margin below the peritoneal reflection (p < 0.001), mesorectal fascia (MRF) invasion (p = 0.02), and lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) involvement (p = 0.005) were more frequent in the preoperative RT group. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 13.3 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.0-36.3 months), local recurrence (LR) was identified in 60 patients (24.4%). It was the first site of recurrence in 45 of them (18.3%). Among them, three patients were in the preoperative RT group. On multivariable analysis, lower margin below the peritoneal reflection, MRF invasion, LPLN involvement, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level ≥ 10 ng/mL before treatment, and preoperative RT were significant prognostic factors for LR-free survival (LRFS). In the patient group without any risk factors, the 2-year LRFS rate was 94.9% without preoperative RT. In the patient group with one or more risk factors, the 2-year LRFS was 64.4% without and 95.2% with preoperative RT. CONCLUSION: LR developed in about 25% of patients within 2 years. Preoperative RT should be considered, especially in patients with a risk factor for LR, including lower margin below the peritoneal reflection, MRF invasion, LPLN involvement, or CEA ≥ 10 ng/mL before treatment.

Sphincter-saving surgery versus abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant treatment with propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sphincter-saving operation is the treatment of choice in patients with lower rectal cancer, although abdominoperineal resection (APR) is necessary in some cases for adequate oncological outcomes. This study compared the oncologic outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing APR and intersphincteric resection (ISR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). METHODS: We compared 104 patients who underwent ISR for lower rectal cancer between 2008 and 2014 with 79 patients who underwent APR during the same period. Cases in which tumors involved the levator ani muscle or the external anal sphincter, as well as those in which surgeons were unable to obtain a negative distal margin via sphincter-saving operation were excluded. Fifty-two patients who underwent ISR were matched via propensity scoring with 52 patients who underwent APR. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in clinical stage and tumor distance from anal verge. Short- and long-term outcomes were similar between the two groups. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 76.3% in the ISR group and 57.8% in the APR group (p = 0.080). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 89.5% in the ISR group and 85.4% in the APR group (p = 0.383). CONCLUSIONS: This reveals that ISR and APR have similar oncologic outcomes following nCRT in patients with advanced low rectal cancer adjusted for background variables.

The role of PDGFRA as a therapeutic target in young colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Young patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) exhibit poor prognoses compared to older patients due to the difficulty in early diagnosis and treatment. However, the underlying molecular characteristics are still unclear. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 49 CRC patients without hereditary CRC using the whole-exome and RNA sequencing with tumor and matched normal samples. A total of 594 TCGA samples and 4 patient-derived cells were utilized for validation. RESULTS: Consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) (53.85%) and CMS2 (38.46%) were enriched in the young (≤ 40 years) and old (> 60 years) age groups, respectively. A CMS4-associated gene, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRA), was significantly upregulated in young patients with CRC (FC = 3.21, p = 0.0001) and was negatively correlated with age (p = 0.0001, R = - 0.526). Moreover, PDGFRA showed a positive co-expression with metastasis-related genes in young CRC patients. In vitro validation confirmed that young patient-derived cells (PDCs) showed an enriched expression of PDGFRA compared to old PDCs and a reduced proliferation rate by knockdown of PDGFRA. Furthermore, young CRC patients were more sensitive to regorafenib, a PDGFRA-targeting drug, than old CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that CRC in young patients is associated with CMS4 and PDGFRA. In addition, PDGFRA may serve potential of novel therapeutic strategies and represent a predictive biomarker of response to regorafenib for young CRC patients.

Tumor Budding as a Prognostic Marker in Rectal Cancer Patients on Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumor budding is associated with adverse histology. It is a predictor of poor oncologic outcomes in colorectal cancer. However, it remains unclear whether tumor budding is a predictor of poor prognosis for rectal cancer patients regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 2888 rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery from 2007 to 2014. Among these patients, 939 underwent nCRT while 1949 did not receive nCRT. Tumor budding was defined as positive if the number of isolated tumor cells or small clusters of up to five tumor cells at the invasive front of the tumor was five or more. If the number was less than five, it was defined as negative. Patients were categorized according to tumor budding status. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between the two groups. RESULTS: Among 2888 patients, 939 received nCRT while 1949 did not receive nCRT. A total of 418 patients who received nCRT were matched (209 in each group). A total of 1024 patients without nCRT were also matched (512 in each group). In matched patients, 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates for the positive budding group were significantly lower than those in the negative budding group regardless of nCRT. On multivariate analysis of prognostic factors, positive budding was associated with poorer disease-free survival independent of nCRT. CONCLUSION: Tumor budding positivity is a prognostic indicator of poor outcomes in rectal cancer patients regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Effect of lymphadenectomy in colorectal cancer with isolated synchronous para-aortic lymph node metastasis.

AIM: There is controversy about the treatment of para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastasis and usefulness of surgical removal. We investigated the clinical effects of synchronous isolated PALN dissection in patients with this metastasis. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer with isolated PALN metastasis were selected between January 2008 and December 2016 at Samsung Medical Center. Patients who were selected for gross-free PALN dissection were set as the dissection group (DG). Patients who did not undergo PALN dissection or underwent biopsy were set as the non-dissection group (NDG). The oncological and operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were recruited. The most clinical and pathological characteristics were not significantly different. The incidence of postoperative complications was also similar. The 5-year overall survival of DG patients was 33.9%, that of NDG patients was 10.1%, and the survival curves were significantly different (P = 0.044). Multivariate analysis revealed that location of tumour in the left colon rather than in the right colon was a risk factor affecting survival in sub-analysis. CONCLUSION: PALN dissection did not increase postoperative complications and had a better effect on patient survival. It is suggested that lymphadenectomy be performed more aggressively when PALN metastasis is seen in patients with right colon cancer.

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer, both transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be performed. However, few studies have compared outcomes of taTME and R-TME, especially for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of taTME and R-TME for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. METHODS: A total of 306 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent taTME or R-TME after nCRT between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified into two groups: 1) taTME surgery group (n = 94); and 2) R-TME surgery group (n = 212). RESULTS: Clinicopathologic variables were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in circumference margin involvement (1.1% in taTME vs. 2.8% in R-TME, p = 0.680) or distal resection margin (2.3 cm in taTME vs. 2.4 cm in R-TME, p = 0.629). Total operation time (239 min in taTME vs. 243 min in R-TME, p = 0.675) and major complications (including anastomosis site leakage, surgical site infection, and voiding difficulty) showed no significant difference between the two groups either. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal and robotic TMEs have similar short-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. High quality TME can be equally achieved with both transanal and robotic approaches.

Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding are prognostic factors for stage I colon cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), and tumor budding in stage I colon cancer is currently unknown. This study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic impact of LVI, PNI, and tumor budding in stage I colon cancer. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2013, 720 patients who underwent curative surgery and were diagnosed with stage I colon cancer were reviewed retrospectively. These patients were categorized into two groups based on LVI, PNI, and tumor budding: the no risk group (n = 566) and risk group (n = 154). RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 103.5 months, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate of the risk group was significantly lower than that of the no risk group (p = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, only the risk group had prognostic factors for 5-year disease-free survival (p = 0.036). In addition, only differentiation was an independent predictor in the risk group (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: LVI, PNI, and tumor budding are strong prognostic factors for stage I colon cancer. Therefore, patients with positive LVI, PNI, or tumor budding should receive close follow-up and potentially be considered for chemotherapy.

Correction to: Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor budding are prognostic factors for stage I colon cancer recurrence.

The name of the author of the original published version of this article was presented incorrectly. The author name "JungWook Huh" should have been presented as "Jung Wook Huh".

Prognostic value of serum inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To date, there have been many studies on postoperative complications and oncologic outcomes, but the findings remain controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the prognostic value of serum inflammatory markers as pretreatment in curatively resected colorectal cancer. The effects of serum inflammatory marker levels on postoperative morbidity were also examined. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 1590 patients with primary sporadic colorectal adenocarcinoma who underwent curative resection between September 2012 and December 2013 at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. White blood cell count (× 103/mcl), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) were evaluated. GPS was determined as follows: GPS of 2, elevated CRP level (> 1.0 mg/dl) and hypoalbuminemia (< 3.5 g/dl); GPS of 1, elevated CRP or hypoalbuminemia; and GPS of 0, neither elevated CRP nor hypoalbuminemia. RESULTS: The median follow-up period for the 1590 patients was 59 months. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 24.8%. In multivariate analysis, female sex (P = 0.006), rectal cancer other than colon cancer (P < 0.001), CEA level > 5 ng/ml (P < 0.001), ESR > 27 mm/h (P = 0.014), and a GPS of 1 or 2 (P < 0.001) were independent risk predictors for morbidity. A GPS of 1 or 2 (P < 0.001) and postoperative morbidity (P < 0.001) significantly affected both overall survival and disease-free survival in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A GPS of 1 or 2 is a significant risk factor for postoperative morbidity and a prognostic factor for long-term survival.

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in early colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine factors predicting lymph node metastasis in patients with T1 or T2 colon cancer. METHODS: A total of 906 patients with T1 or T2 colon cancer who underwent colon resection with regional lymphadenectomy in a tertiary hospital, from January 2008 to December 2013, were analyzed. The prognostic factors for LN metastasis and the risk factors for survival were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 728 patients (80.4%) without lymph node metastasis (LN-negative group) and 178 patients (19.6%) with lymph node metastasis (LN-positive group). Tumor invasion depth (P < 0.001), lymphatic invasion (P < 0.001), and perineural invasion (P = 0.008) were significantly different between the two groups. During the median follow-up period of 69 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 98.6% for the LN-negative group and 92.8% for the LN-positive group (P ≤ 0.001). In multivariate analysis, influencing factors associated with disease-free survival rate were LN metastasis (P = 0.001) and perineural invasion (P = 0.040). Female, depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.001), and lymphatic invasion (P < 0.001) were significant independent predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Positive LN status predicted poor disease-free survival in patients with early cancer. This suggests that depth of tumor invasion ≥ sm2 and the presence of lymphatic invasion in early colon cancer provide useful information to determine which patients would benefit from radical surgery.

Long-term oncologic outcome and risk factors after conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic converted surgery for patients with colon cancer. METHODS: Retrospective database of consecutive curative-intent laparoscopic-assisted surgery for primary stage I-III colon cancer was reviewed from 2000 to 2013. The patients were divided into non-conversion and conversion groups. The patient characters, operative features, perioperative parameters, pathologic features, and oncologic outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 4010 patients were included in the study: 3929 in the non-conversion group and 81 (2%) in the conversion group. The median follow-up period was 63.9 months. There were significant differences in age, preoperative clinical T-stage, and tumor size between the groups. In operative details between the two groups, there were also significant differences in access to surgery, tumor location, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). The two most common reasons for conversion were adhesion (n = 37, 46%) and bleeding (n = 21, 26%). Multivariate analysis showed that conversion was an independent predictor of both overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (P = 0.003). The 5-year OS rate of the conversion group was 79.6%, and that of the non-conversion group was 96.2% (P < 0.001). The multivariate predictors of conversion were age, type of surgery, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and clinical T-stage. CONCLUSION: Conversion to open surgery may affect patient survival and recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer. Our data suggest that conversion is associated with poor outcomes, but we should not hesitate to convert it to patients who have difficulty in laparoscopic surgery.

Determining whether postoperative chemoradiotherapy is required in patients with pathologic T3N0 rectal cancer with negative resection margin.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the risk factors for locoregional recurrence (LR) and determine possible candidates for postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in pathologic T3N0 (pT3N0) rectal cancer patients with a negative resection margin after total mesorectal excision (TME). METHOD: Data from 365 patients who had pT3N0 rectal cancer between 2003 and 2012 in the Samsung Medical Center were reviewed. All patients underwent upfront surgery without preoperative treatment. Postoperative management involved either no adjuvant therapy (n = 122), chemotherapy alone (n = 100), or CCRT (n = 143). RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 71 months. The 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and LR-free survival (LRFS) rates were 95.9%, 86.9%, and 96.3%, respectively. When comparing the three groups (surgery alone [n = 122], chemotherapy alone [n = 100], and CCRT [n = 143]), there was no significant difference in LRFS among them (94.0%, 93.4%, and 99.2%, respectively; p = 0.20). However, when patients were stratified by risk factors (distance from anal verge ≤ 5 cm and distal resection margin [DRM] ≤ 2 cm), the 5-year LRFS improved by more than 10% by adding CCRT (98.9% with CCRT vs. 87.4% without CCRT, p = 0.006) in those with more than one risk factor. Postoperative CCRT did not affect the 5-year LRFS (100% with CCRT vs. 99.0% without CCRT, p = 0.66) in patients with no risk factors. CONCLUSION: Postoperative CCRT significantly decreased LR in patients with pT3N0 rectal cancer with a negative resection margin but having a distance from the anal verge ≤ 5 cm or DRM ≤ 2 cm.

Comparative study of laparoscopic versus open technique for simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases with propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of patients with CRC undergoing laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection with simultaneous resection for liver metastases. METHODS: A total of 126 patients underwent combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and synchronous colorectal liver metastases between 2008 and 2016. A total of 318 patients were treated by an open approach during the above period. By propensity score matching, 109 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection and 109 patients who had an open approach were compared. Analyzed variables included patient characteristics, tumor features, and short-term and mid-term outcomes. RESULTS: Demographic features and pathologic outcomes were similar in both groups after propensity score matching. Three (2.8%) patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection experienced conversion to open procedure. There was no difference in hospital stay (p = 0.078), transfusion rate (p = 0.686), or time of bowel function return (p = 0.570) between the two groups. The laparoscopic group and the open approach group also showed similar 3-year overall survival rate (74.4% vs. 79.1%; p = 0.792) and 3-year disease-free survival rate (58.5% vs. 55.2%; p = 0.391). However, postoperative morbidity rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (20.2% vs. 33.0%; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases showed satisfactory oncologic outcomes with some short-term advantages compared to the open approach. Thus, laparoscopic approach could be a good alternative of open approach for simultaneous liver and colon resection in patients with CRC.

Anastomotic Leak Does Not Impact Oncologic Outcomes After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Resection for Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship of anastomotic leakage, local recurrence, and overall survival in rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and curative resection. BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between anastomotic leakage and oncologic outcomes after preoperative CRT. METHODS: A total of 698 consecutive primary rectal cancer patients after preoperative CRT between April 19, 2000, and December 27, 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-seven patients who had anastomotic leakage were compared with 651 patients who had no anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: Of 698 patients, 47 (6.7%) patients had anastomotic leakage. Among these 47 patients, 39 (83.0%) had grade C leak that required urgent operation, while 8 (17.0%) had grade B leak that was managed expectantly or by percutaneous drainage. The median follow-up period was 47.6 months (range, 27.1 to 68.9 months). One hundred twenty (17.2%) recurrences were identified among all patients. The median overall disease-free survival was 43 months (range, 22.4 to 66.7 months). Five-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (80.5% vs 80.4%, P = 0.839). Five-year local recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly either between the 2 groups (93.7% vs 94.9%, P = 0.653). Five-year overall survival rates of patients with or without leakage were 90.9% and 86.3%, respectively (P = 0.242). Five-year cancer-specific survival rates of patients with or without leakage were 92.2% and 86.3%, respectively (P = 0.248). CONCLUSION: After preoperative CRT, an anastomotic leak is not associated with a significant increase in local recurrence or long-term survival in rectal cancer.

Oncological outcome of surgical site infection after colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the oncological outcome of surgical site infection (SSI) after colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A total of 3675 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection from January 2009 to December 2011 were analyzed. The prognostic significance of SSI was evaluated. Risk factors for SSI were also identified using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall SSI rate was 9.6%, in which 5.5% was superficial or deep SSI and 4.1% was organ/space SSI. Incidence of SSI varied significantly with tumor location (P < 0.001): 7.1% in colon cancer and 14.0% in rectal cancer. With a median follow-up period of 49.8 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates of patients without and with SSI were 87% and 83%, respectively (P = 0.018). SSI predicted disease-free survival in univariate analysis. However, SSI was not an independent predictor of survival in multivariate analysis. Body mass index, ASA score, preoperative WBC count, rectal tumor, open surgery, operation time, and transfusion during surgery were independent predictors of SSI. CONCLUSION: SSI predicted disease-free survival in colorectal cancer patients following curative surgery. Patient' demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative conditions were independently associated with an increased likelihood of SSI.