For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
10
views
72
references
 Top references
cited by
14
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      190
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min , P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

          Pierre Guillou, Philip Quirke, Helen Thorpe … (2005)
          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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 575 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

            Antonio Lacy, Juan Garcia-Valdecasas, Salvadora Delgado … (2002)
            Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.
            Article 0 comments Cited 442 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial

              Bernard Nordlinger, Halfdan Sorbye, Bengt Glimelius … (2008)
              Summary Background Surgical resection alone is regarded as the standard of care for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer, but relapse is common. We assessed the combination of perioperative chemotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Methods This parallel-group study reports the trial's final data for progression-free survival for a protocol unspecified interim time-point, while overall survival is still being monitored. 364 patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned to either six cycles of FOLFOX4 before and six cycles after surgery or to surgery alone (182 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 182 in surgery group). Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for centre and risk score. The primary objective was to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·71 or less for progression-free survival. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Analyses were repeated for all eligible (171 vs 171) and resected patients (151 vs 152). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006479. Findings In the perioperative chemotherapy group, 151 (83%) patients were resected after a median of six (range 1–6) preoperative cycles and 115 (63%) patients received a median six (1–8) postoperative cycles. 152 (84%) patients were resected in the surgery group. The absolute increase in rate of progression-free survival at 3 years was 7·3% (from 28·1% [95·66% CI 21·3–35·5] to 35·4% [28·1–42·7]; HR 0·79 [0·62–1·02]; p=0·058) in randomised patients; 8·1% (from 28·1% [21·2–36·6] to 36·2% [28·7–43·8]; HR 0·77 [0·60–1·00]; p=0·041) in eligible patients; and 9·2% (from 33·2% [25·3–41·2] to 42·4% [34·0–50·5]; HR 0·73 [0·55–0·97]; p=0·025) in patients undergoing resection. 139 patients died (64 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 75 in surgery group). Reversible postoperative complications occurred more often after chemotherapy than after surgery (40/159 [25%] vs 27/170 [16%]; p=0·04). After surgery we recorded two deaths in the surgery alone group and one in the perioperative chemotherapy group. Interpretation Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 is compatible with major liver surgery and reduces the risk of events of progression-free survival in eligible and resected patients. Funding Swedish Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis.
              Article 0 comments Cited 347 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Peter Szatmary: p.szatmary@liverpool.ac.uk
                Xu-Bao Liu: liuxb2011@126.com
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Sci Rep
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Sci Rep
                Title: Scientific Reports
                Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2045-2322
                Publication date (Electronic): 21 April 2017
                Publication date PMC-release: 21 April 2017
                Publication date Collection: 2017
                Volume: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: 1012
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.412901.f, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, , West China Hospital of Sichuan University, ; Cheng du, China
                [2 ]People’s Hospital of Deyan, Chengdu and Deyang, Cheng du, China
                [3 ]GRID grid.412901.f, Departments of Pancreatic Surgery, , West China Hospital of Sichuan University, ; Chengdu, China
                [4 ]GRID grid.412901.f, Department of gastrointestinal Surgery, , West China Hospital of Sichuan University, ; Chengdu, China
                [5 ]GRID grid.269741.f, Clinical Directorate of General Surgery, , Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, ; Liverpool, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1826-2282
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7513-8595
                Article
                Publisher ID: 978
                DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00978-z
                PMC ID: 5430829
                PubMed ID: 28432295
                SO-VID: 4569e008-6a79-409b-8342-0a4c1e43b815
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2017
                License:

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Date received : 6 December 2016
                Date accepted : 20 March 2017
                Categories
                Subject: Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2017

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content190

                See all similar

                Cited by14

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,957

                See all reference authors