Min Ki Kim

Laparoscopic Surgery for Transverse Colon Cancer: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Comparison with Conventional Open Surgery

BACKGROUND Published studies on laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer are scarce. More studies are necessary to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS From April 1996 to December 2010, 102 consecutive patients with stage II or III disease who had undergone curative resection for transverse colon cancer were enrolled. Seventy-nine patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC), whereas 23 patients underwent conventional open colectomy (OC). Short- and long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS The OC group had a larger tumor size (7.6 ± 3.4 cm versus 5.2 ± 2.3 cm, P = .004) and more retrieved lymph nodes (26.4 ± 11.6 versus 17.5 ± 9.4, P = .002), without differences in resection margins. In the LAC group, return to diet was faster (4.5 ± 1.2 days versus 5.4 ± 1.8 days, P = .013), and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (12.1 ± 4.2 days versus 15.9 ± 4.8 days, P = .000). There were no differences in occurrence of intra- or postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival rate (OS) or disease-free survival rate (DFS) between the two groups (5-year OS, 90.4% versus 90.5%, P = .670; 5-year DFS, 84.2% versus 90.7%, P = .463). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer has better short-term outcomes compared with open surgery, with acceptable long-term outcomes. As in colorectal cancer of other sites, laparoscopic surgery can be a feasible alternative to conventional surgery for transverse colon cancer.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer are comparable to conventional open surgery

Purpose Few studies about laparoscopic surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer have been published. This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer with those of conventional open surgery. Methods From January 2004 to December 2010, 51 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stages I–III splenic flexure colon cancer were enrolled. Thirty-three patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted colectomy, while 18 patients underwent conventional open colectomy. Short- and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. Results There were no differences in baseline characteristics, intra- and postoperative complications. The laparoscopy group showed longer operation time (median [interquartile range, IQR]: 295.0 [255.0–362.5] minutes vs. 180.0 [168.8–206.3] minutes, P < 0.001). In the laparoscopy group, return of bowel function was faster (median [IQR]: 3 [2–4] vs. 4 [3–5], P = 0.007) and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (median [IQR]: 9 [8–11] vs. 10.5 [9–19], P = 0.026). There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival rate (84.3% vs. 76.0%, P = 0.560) or disease-free survival rate (93.8% vs. 74.5%, P = 0.078) between the 2 groups. Conclusion Laparoscopic surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer has better short-term outcomes than open surgery, as well as acceptable long-term outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery can be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional open surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer.

Outcome of bridge to surgery stenting for obstructive left colon cancer

The aim of our study was to compare short‐ and long‐term outcomes of stent insertion followed by surgery with those of emergency surgery for left colon malignant obstructions.

Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Stage II Colon Cancer: Analysis of Korean National Data

Purpose Debates exist regarding the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate the current status of adjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on survival for Korean stage II colon cancer patients by analyzing the National Quality Assessment data. Materials and Methods A total of 7,880 patientswho underwent curative resection for stage II colon adenocarcinoma between January 2011 andDecember 2014 in Koreawere selected randomly as evaluation subjects for the quality assessment. The factors that influenced overall survival were identified. The high-risk group was defined as having at least one of the following: perforation/obstruction, lymph node harvest less than 12, lymphovascular/perineural invasion, positive resection margin, poor differentiation, or pathologic T4 stage. Results The median follow-up period was 38 months (range, 1 to 63 months). Chemotherapy was a favorable prognostic factor for either the high- (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.59; p < 0.001) or low-risk group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; p=0.002) in multivariate analysis. This was also the case in patients over 70 years of age. The hazard ratio was significantly increased as the number of involved risk factors was increased in patients who didn’t receive chemotherapy. Adding oxaliplatin showed no difference in survival (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.91 to 2.03; p=0.132). Conclusion Adjuvant chemotherapy can be recommended for stage II colon cancer patients, but the addition of oxaliplatin to the regimen must be selective.

Response to Re: Outcome of bridge to surgery stenting for obstructive left colon cancer

We really appreciate the valuable comments and analyses by Sabbagh et al. When comparing the treatment outcomes between emergency surgery (ES) and the bridge to surgery using self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) for obstructing colon cancer, we must consider two aspects: perioperative recovery and long-term oncological outcomes. As Sabbagh et al. commented, some researchers demonstrated that the placement of SEMS for obstructing colon cancer resulted in unfavourable oncological outcomes. Nevertheless, there are some reasons they would decide on the placement of SEMS for obstructing colon cancer: medically inoperable patients’ condition, to avoid multiple staged surgeries (especially for left-sided colon obstruction) and post-operative morbidity, to provide enough preoperative resuscitation and so on. In other words, the preference of SEMS would be intended to achieve favourable perioperative outcomes. We mentioned some factors related to long-term outcomes in the Discussion section of our original article. Besides, surgeon’s factor might be considered as an important factor; most surgeries after SEMS were performed by colorectal surgeons, but a certain portion of ESs by general surgeons. These affect the number of harvested lymph nodes and adequate surgical margins, which might mean a radicality or completeness of curative surgery. In Table 4 of our original article, ES group had a shorter distal resection margin and a lower rate of retrieving more than 12 lymph nodes than the SEMS group. We think that these factors might bring poorer oncological outcomes of the ES group than those from meta-analysis which Sabbagh et al. mentioned. In our original article, we intended to emphasize the role of SEMS as an alternative procedure for left-sided colon cancer obstruction, and not a standard procedure. We suggest that the bridge to surgery after SEMS may be a good alternative treatment option which has favourable perioperative outcome for left-sided colon cancer obstruction, especially when ES is not available or appropriate.

Efficacy and Safety of Ramosetron Injection for Nausea and Vomiting in Colorectal-Cancer Patients Undergoing a Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study

Purpose A laparoscopic colectomy in colorectal-cancer patients is usually associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of injection of long-acting 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist for the reduction of PONV in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods A total of 48 patients scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. Patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups and assigned to receive either 0.3 mg of ramosetron intravenously (group A, n = 25) or 2 mL of normal saline (placebo) (group B, n = 22) immediately after the operation. The incidence of PONV, the nausea severity scale score, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, the total amount of patient-controlled analgesia used, the recovery of bowel function, and morbidities were assessed at 1 hour and at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Results The baseline and the operative characteristics were similar between the groups (P > 0.05). The number of cases without PONV (complete response) was higher for group A (ramosetron) than group B (normal saline): 24 hours after surgery, 92.0% (23 of 25) for group A versus 54.5% (12 of 22) for group B; 48 hours after surgery, 92% (23 of 25) for group A versus 81.8% (18 of 22) for group B (both P < 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusion Postoperative ramosetron injection is effective for the prevention of PONV after a laparoscopic colectomy in colorectal-cancer patients.

Are we doing too much?: local excision before radical surgery in early rectal cancer

PurposeIn early rectal cancer cases, the use of local excision is increasing. The general indication for local excision is based on the preoperative stage, but there is often a discrepancy between pre and postoperative stages. We sought to determine the indications for local excision in T1 rectal adenocarcinoma patients by comparing the preoperative clinical and postoperative pathological stages. A second aim was to compare the oncologic outcomes between local excision and radical resection.MethodsBetween 2004 and 2014, 152 T1 rectal adenocarcinoma patients were enrolled. We divided the subjects into two groups, local excision and radical resection, depending on the modality of treatment the patients initially received. The group of patients who underwent radical resection was subsequently subdivided into “excisable” and “non-excisable” groups based on the postoperative pathology.ResultsOf 152 patients, 28 patients (18.4%) underwent local excision, while 124 patients (81.6%) underwent radical resection. Of 124 patients, in clinically suspected T2 or less and N0 (93) cases, 50 patients (53.8%) needed treatment beyond local excision, and local excision was sufficient for 43 patients (46.2%). The 3-year overall survival (p = 0.393) and 3-year disease-free survival (p = 0.076) between the local excision and radical resection groups showed no significant difference.ConclusionsThe clinical T stage was overestimated in more than half of the cases. Therefore, if cT1/2 tumors with cN0 are suspected preoperatively, local excision is initially recommended and will allow for determination of underlying pathology. The clinician can then decide whether to monitor or intervene with radical resection.

Procedural difficulty differences according to tumor location do not compromise the clinical outcome of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a retrospective analysis

Laparoscopic colectomy procedures and their corresponding difficulty levels may vary depending on the tumor location within the colon, and a laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) would require more proficiency than a conventional laparoscopic colectomy. We aimed to report our laparoscopic CME with CVL data and to investigate the clinical outcome differences of laparoscopic CME with CVL by various tumor sub-site locations. Prospectively collected clinical data of consecutive patients who received laparoscopic colectomy for primary colon cancer between April 1995 and December 2010 from single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. All of the included surgery was performed on the basis of CME with CVL principle with no-touch isolation technique. Data were analyzed and compared among three groups; patients who received right or extended right hemicolectomy (group A, n = 142), transverse colectomy or left or extended left hemicolectomy (group B, n = 59), and sigmoidectomy or anterior resection (group C, n = 210). Female patients were more common in group A (53.5% vs. 37.3% vs. 39.5%, p = 0.020). Other baseline characteristics were comparable. Operative time was shorter in group C than the other groups (309.0 ± 74.7 vs. 324.3 ± 89.1 vs. 280.1 ± 93.1 min, p = 0.000). There was no significant difference among groups in perioperative complication and patient recovery. Five-year overall survival, disease-free survival and local recurrence rate showed no difference for a median follow up period of 73 (1–120) months. In conclusion, laparoscopic tumor-specific CME and CVL for colon cancer can be performed with comparable short- and long-term outcomes regardless of tumor sub-site location except for the operative time.