scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

TL;DR: The results show that laparoscopic resection for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy provides similar outcomes for disease-free survival as open resection, thus justifying its use.
Abstract: Summary Background Compared with open resection, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers is associated with improved short-term outcomes, but high-level evidence showing similar long-term outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare survival outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for patients with mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer. Methods The Comparison of Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low REctal cancer After Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN) trial was an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial done between April 4, 2006, and Aug 26, 2009, at three centres in Korea. Patients (aged 18–80 years) with cT3N0–2M0 mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer who had received preoperative chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either open or laparoscopic surgery. Randomisation was stratified by sex and preoperative chemotherapy regimen. Investigators were masked to the randomisation sequence; patients and clinicians were not masked to the treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was 3 year disease-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470951. Findings We randomly assigned 340 patients to receive either open surgery (n=170) or laparoscopic surgery (n=170). 3 year disease-free survival was 72·5% (95% CI 65·0–78·6) for the open surgery group and 79·2% (72·3–84·6) for the laparoscopic surgery group, with a difference that was lower than the prespecified non-inferiority margin (–6·7%, 95% CI −15·8 to 2·4; p Interpretation Our results show that laparoscopic resection for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy provides similar outcomes for disease-free survival as open resection, thus justifying its use. Funding National Cancer Center, South Korea.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolicism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of peri operative care for colonic surgery.
Abstract: This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol. A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

1,918 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

1,545 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Laroscopic 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.
Abstract: 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 ...

1,087 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Oct 2015-JAMA
TL;DR: Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes.
Abstract: Importance Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease. Objective To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. Design, setting, and participants A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection. Interventions Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. Results Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P Conclusions and relevance Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

834 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Oct 2015-JAMA
TL;DR: Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established, and these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of lapARoscopic surgery.
Abstract: Importance Laparoscopic procedures are generally thought to have better outcomes than open procedures. Because of anatomical constraints, laparoscopic rectal resection may not be better because of limitations in performing an adequate cancer resection. Objective To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open rectal cancer resection for adequacy of cancer clearance. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial (Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum; ALaCaRT) conducted between March 2010 and November 2014. Twenty-six accredited surgeons from 24 sites in Australia and New Zealand randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. Interventions Open laparotomy and rectal resection (n = 237) or laparoscopic rectal resection (n = 238). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was a composite of oncological factors indicating an adequate surgical resection, with a noninferiority boundary of Δ = −8%. Successful resection was defined as meeting all the following criteria: (1) complete total mesorectal excision, (2) a clear circumferential margin (≥1 mm), and (3) a clear distal resection margin (≥1 mm). Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinded to the method of surgery. Results A successful resection was achieved in 194 patients (82%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 208 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −7.0% [95% CI, −12.4% to ∞]; P = .38 for noninferiority). The circumferential resection margin was clear in 222 patients (93%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 228 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −3.7% [95% CI, −7.6% to 0.1%]; P = .06), the distal margin was clear in 236 patients (99%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 234 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −0.4% [95% CI, −1.8% to 1.0%]; P = .67), and total mesorectal excision was complete in 206 patients (87%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 216 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of −5.4% [95% CI, −10.9% to 0.2%]; P = .06). The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 9%. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established. Although the overall quality of surgery was high, these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of laparoscopic surgery. Longer follow-up of recurrence and survival is currently being acquired. Trial Registration anzctr.org Identifier:ACTRN12609000663257

826 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy, as compared with postoperative cheMoradi therapy, improved local control and was associated with reduced toxicity but did not improve overall survival.
Abstract: background Postoperative chemoradiotherapy is the recommended standard therapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. In recent years, encouraging results with preoperative radiotherapy have been reported. We compared preoperative chemoradiotherapy with postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. methods We randomly assigned patients with clinical stage T3 or T4 or node-positive disease to receive either preoperative or postoperative chemoradiotherapy. The preoperative treatment consisted of 5040 cGy delivered in fractions of 180 cGy per day, five days per week, and fluorouracil, given in a 120-hour continuous intravenous infusion at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day during the first and fifth weeks of radiotherapy. Surgery was performed six weeks after the completion of chemoradiotherapy. One month after surgery, four five-day cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter per day) were given. Chemoradiotherapy was identical in the postoperative-treatment group, except for the delivery of a boost of 540 cGy. The primary end point was overall survival. results Four hundred twenty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 402 patients to receive postoperative chemoradiotherapy. The overall five-year survival rates were 76 percent and 74 percent, respectively (P=0.80). The five-year cumulative incidence of local relapse was 6 percent for patients assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 13 percent in the postoperative-treatment group (P=0.006). Grade 3 or 4 acute toxic effects occurred in 27 percent of the patients in the preoperative-treatment group, as compared with 40 percent of the patients in the postoperative-treatment group (P=0.001); the corresponding rates of long-term toxic effects were 14 percent and 24 percent, respectively (P=0.01). conclusions Preoperative chemoradiotherapy, as compared with postoperative chemoradiotherapy, improved local control and was associated with reduced toxicity but did not improve overall survival.

5,218 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open-colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.
Abstract: background Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation. methods We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence. results At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups — 16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopicsurgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P = 0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups. conclusions In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.

3,180 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Laroscopic-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 laparosc-assisted anterior resection forcancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.

2,833 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.

2,372 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.
Abstract: Purpose The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. Methods The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Seven hundred ninety-f...

1,363 citations

Related Papers (5)