Eva Haglind

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable. The multicentre COLOR (COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon. METHODS 627 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, metastasis, overall survival, and blood loss during surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative outcome are reported. FINDINGS Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection (median 100 mL [range 0-2700] vs 175 mL [0-2000], p<0.0001), although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery (p<0.0001). Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 (17%) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure. Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function (p<0.0001), need for fewer analgesics, and with a shorter hospital stay (p<0.0001) compared with open colectomy. Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right, left, and sigmoid colon.

Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer : long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes-including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination-are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297791. FINDINGS The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100-400] vs 400 mL [200-700], p<0·0001); however, laparoscopic procedures took longer (240 min [184-300] vs 188 min [150-240]; p<0·0001). In the laparoscopic surgery group, bowel function returned sooner (2·0 days [1·0-3·0] vs 3·0 days [2·0-4·0]; p<0·0001) and hospital stay was shorter (8·0 days [6·0-13·0] vs 9·0 days [7·0-14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin (<2 mm) was noted in 56 (10%) of 588 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 30 (10%) of 300 in the open surgery group (p=0·850). Median tumour distance to distal resection margin did not differ significantly between the groups (3·0 cm [IQR 2·0-4·8] vs 3·0 cm [1·8-5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. INTERPRETATION In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint-locoregional recurrence-are expected by the end of 2013. FUNDING Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.

A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer. METHODS In this international trial conducted in 30 hospitals, we randomly assigned patients with a solitary adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, not invading adjacent tissues, and without distant metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio. The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery. Secondary end points included disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 1044 patients were included (699 in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group). At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups (difference, 0 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 2.6). Disease-free survival rates were 74.8% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 9.9). Overall survival rates were 86.7% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall survival similar to those for open surgery. (Funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe and others; COLOR II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297791.).

Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

BackgroundThe European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002.MethodsA systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.ResultsAdvanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery.ConclusionLaparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Early detection of colorectal cancer could reduce cancer‐specific mortality. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening on colorectal cancer mortality in a Swedish population.

Randomized clinical trial of the costs of open and laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer.

There has been no randomized clinical trial of the costs of laparoscopic colonic resection (LCR) compared with those of open colonic resection (OCR) in the treatment of colonic cancer.

Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial

BACKGROUND Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become widely used without high-grade evidence of superiority regarding long-term clinical outcomes compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), the gold standard. OBJECTIVE To compare patient-reported urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction 12 mo after RALP or RRP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial of patients undergoing prostatectomy in 14 centres using RALP or RRP. Clinical-record forms and validated patient questionnaires at baseline and 12 mo after surgery were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with logistic regression and adjusted for possible confounders. The primary end point was urinary incontinence (change of pad less than once in 24h vs one time or more per 24h) at 12 mo. Secondary end points were erectile dysfunction at 12 mo and positive surgical margins. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS At 12 mo after RALP, 366 men (21.3%) were incontinent, as were 144 (20.2%) after RRP. The unadjusted OR was 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–1.34). Erectile dysfunction was observed in 1200 men (70.4%) 12 mo after RALP and 531 (74.7%) after RRP. The unadjusted OR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.98). CONCLUSIONS In a Swedish setting, RALP for prostate cancer was modestly beneficial in preserving erectile function compared with RRP, without a statistically significant difference regarding urinary incontinence or surgical margins. PATIENT SUMMARY We compared patient-reported urinary incontinence after prostatectomy with two types of surgical technique. There was no statistically significant improvement in the rate of urinary leakage, but there was a small improvement regarding erectile function after robot-assisted operation.

Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer.

BackgroundHigh hospital case volume has been associated with improved outcome after open operation for colorectal malignancies.MethodsTo assess the impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colon cancer, we conducted an analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic colon resection within the COlon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial.ResultsA total of 536 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were included in the analysis. Median operating time was 240, 210 and 188 min in centers with low, medium, and high case volumes, respectively (p < 0.001). A significant difference in conversion rate was observed among low, medium, and high case volume hospitals (24% vs 24% vs 9%; p < 0.001). A higher number of lymph nodes were harvested at high case volume hospitals (p < 0.001). After operation, fewer complications (p = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) were observed in patients treated at hospitals with high caseloads.ConclusionsLaparoscopic operation for colon cancer at hospitals with high caseloads appears to be associated with improved short-term results.

Laparoscopic Lavage Is Feasible and Safe for the Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis With Purulent Peritonitis: The First Results From the Randomized Controlled Trial DILALA.

Objective: To evaluate short-term outcomes of a new treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis in a randomized controlled trial. Background: Perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III) has traditionally been treated with surgery including colon resection and stoma (Hartmann procedure) with considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic lavage has been suggested as a less invasive surgical treatment. Methods: Laparoscopic lavage was compared with colon resection and stoma in a randomized controlled multicenter trial, DILALA (ISRCTN82208287). Initial diagnostic laparoscopy showing Hinchey III was followed by randomization. Clinical data was collected up to 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: Eighty-three patients were randomized, out of whom 39 patients in laparoscopic lavage and 36 patients in the Hartmann procedure groups were available for analysis. Morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic lavage did not differ when compared with the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic lavage resulted in shorter operating time, shorter time in the recovery unit, and shorter hospital stay. Conclusions: In this trial, laparoscopic lavage as treatment for patients with perforated diverticulitis Hinchey III was feasible and safe in the short-term.