scispace - formally typeset
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.

TLDR
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.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

[Laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer resection: oncologically equal?].

TL;DR: The COLOR II and the COREAN trials demonstrated oncological equivalence; however, the ACOSOG and the ALaCaRT studies came to a different conclusion.
Journal ArticleDOI

Minimally invasive rectal surgery: Laparoscopy, robotics, and transanal approaches

TL;DR: The essential steps to minimally invasive proctectomy for rectal cancer with a focus on robotic‐assisted laparoscopic surgery are outlined and technical approaches and strategies to maintain essential oncologic surgical principles will be reviewed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Cost analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis.

TL;DR: SILS for colon cancer yielded similar costs as well as perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with CLS, and can be considered a reasonable treatment option for Colon cancer for selective patients.
Journal ArticleDOI

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

TL;DR: In this paper , the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid-low rectal cancer was evaluated in 298 consecutive patients who underwent Laparoscopic TME or TaTME between January 2015 and December 2019.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Preoperative versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

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

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

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

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group.

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.
Related Papers (5)