Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without data from large-scale randomised trials to support its use. We compared short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer to predict long-term outcomes. Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 794 patients with colorectal cancer from 27 UK centres. Patients were allocated to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268). Primary short-term endpoints were positivity rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN74883561. Six patients (two [open], four [laparoscopic]) had no surgery, and 23 had missing surgical data (nine, 14). 253 and 484 patients actually received open and laparoscopic-assisted treatment, respectively. 143 (29%) patients underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours did not differ between treatments (18 [7%] patients, open vs 34 [6%], laparoscopic; difference -0.3%, 95% CI -3.9 to 3.4%, p=0.89), and neither did in-hospital mortality (13 [5%] vs 21 [4%]; -0.9%, -3.9 to 2.2%, p=0.57). Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups. Patients with converted treatment had raised complication rates. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes. However, impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.

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. 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. 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. 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. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The safety and short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy has not been demonstrated. The aim of the randomised Comparison of Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low REctal cancer After Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN) trial was to compare open surgery with laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Between April 4, 2006, and Aug 26, 2009, patients with cT3N0-2 mid or low rectal cancer without distant metastasis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy were enrolled at three tertiary-referral hospitals. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive either open surgery (n=170) or laparoscopic surgery (n=170), stratified according to sex and preoperative chemotherapy regimen. Short-term outcomes assessed were involvement of the circumferential resection margin, macroscopic quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen, number of harvested lymph nodes, recovery of bowel function, perioperative morbidity, postoperative pain, and quality of life. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Patients continue to be followed up for the primary outcome (3-year disease-free survival). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470951. Two patients (1.2%) in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery, but were included in the laparoscopic group for analyses. Estimated blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median 217.5 mL [150.0-400.0] in the open group vs 200.0 mL [100.0-300.0] in the laparoscopic group, p=0.006), although surgery time was longer in the laparoscopic group (mean 244.9 min [SD 75.4] vs 197.0 min [62.9], p<0.0001). Involvement of the circumferential resection margin, macroscopic quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen, number of harvested lymph nodes, and perioperative morbidity did not differ between the two groups. The laparoscopic surgery group showed earlier recovery of bowel function than the open surgery group (time to pass first flatus, median 38.5 h [23.0-53.0] vs 60.0 h [43.0-73.0], p<0.0001; time to resume a normal diet, 85.0 h [66.0-95.0] vs 93.0 h [86.0-121.0], p<0.0001; time to first defecation, 96.5 h [70.0-125.0] vs 123 h [94.0-156.0], p<0.0001). The total amount of morphine used was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median 107.2 mg [80.0-150.0] vs 156.9 mg [117.0-185.2], p<0.0001). 3 months after proctectomy or ileostomy takedown, the laparoscopic group showed better physical functioning score than the open group (0.501 [n=122] vs -4.970 [n=128], p=0.0073), less fatigue (-5.659 [n=122] vs 0.098 [n=129], p=0.0206), and fewer micturition (-2.583 [n=122] vs 4.725 [n=129], p=0.0002), gastrointestinal (-0.400 [n=122] vs 4.331 [n=129], p=0.0102), and defecation problems (0.535 [n=103] vs 5.327 [n=99], p=0.0184) in repeated measures analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline values. Laparoscopic surgery after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for mid or low rectal cancer is safe and has short-term benefits compared with open surgery; the quality of oncological resection was equivalent. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.