Explore the vast range of titles available.

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging-guided lymphadenectomy has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing the number of lymph nodes (LNs) retrieved in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). Previously, we reported the primary outcomes and short-term secondary outcomes of a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial (NCT03050879) investigating the use of ICG for image-guided lymphadenectomy in patients with potentially resectable GC. Patients were randomly (1:1 ratio) assigned to either the ICG or non-ICG group. The primary outcome was the number of LNs retrieved and has been reported. Here, we report the primary outcome and long-term secondary outcomes including three-year overall survival (OS), three-year disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence patterns. The per-protocol analysis set population is used for all analyses (258 patients, ICG [n = 129] vs. non-ICG group [n = 129]). The mean total LNs retrieved in the ICG group significantly exceeds that in the non-ICG group (50.5 ± 15.9 vs 42.0 ± 10.3, P  < 0.001). Both OS and DFS in the ICG group are significantly better than that in the non-ICG group (log-rank P  = 0.015; log-rank P  = 0.012, respectively). There is a difference in the overall recurrence rates between the ICG and non-ICG groups (17.8% vs 31.0%). Compared with conventional lymphadenectomy, ICG guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is safe and effective in prolonging survival among patients with resectable GC. Due to high rate of metastasis, lymphadenectomy is a cornerstone of the surgical treatment of gastric cancer however the accurate dissection of lymph nodes (LN) can be challenging. Here, the authors present the long-term outcomes of a randomised control trial investigating indocyanine green fluorescence image-guided LN retrieval in gastric cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy has been historically considered oncologically equivalent to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early cervical cancer. However, a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC) has demonstrated significant inferiority of the minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of combined laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy. Between August 1994 and December 2018, patients with invasive cervical cancer were treated using minimally-invasive surgery at the Universities of Jena, Charité Berlin (Campus CCM and CBF) and Cologne and Asklepios Clinic Hamburg. 389 patients with inclusion criteria identical to the LACC trial were identified. In contrast to the laparoscopic/robotic technique used in the LACC trial, all patients in our cohort underwent a combined transvaginal-laparoscopic approach without the use of any uterine manipulator. A total of 1952 consecutive patients with cervical cancer were included in the analysis. Initial International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage was IA1 lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI+), IA2 and IB1/IIA1 in 32 (8%), 43 (11%), and 314 (81%) patients, respectively, and histology was squamous cell in 263 (68%), adenocarcinoma in 117 (30%), and adenosquamous in 9 (2%) patients. Lymphovascular invasion was confirmed in 106 (27%) patients. The median number of lymph nodes was 24 (range 2–86). Lymph nodes were tumor-free in 379 (97%) patients. Following radical hysterectomy, 71 (18%) patients underwent adjuvant chemoradiation or radiation. After a median follow-up of 99 (range 1–288) months, the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 96.8%, 95.8%, and 93.1 %, and the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year overall survival rates were 98.5%, 97.8%, and 95.8%, respectively. Recurrence location was loco-regional in 50% of cases with recurrence (n=10). Interestingly, 9/20 recurrences occurred more than 39 months after surgery. The combined laparoscopic-vaginal technique for radical hysterectomy with avoidance of spillage and manipulation of tumor cells provides excellent oncologic outcome for patients with early cervical cancer. Our retrospective data suggest that laparoscopic-vaginal surgery may be oncologically safe and should be validated in further randomized trials.

Background The efficacy and safety outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer remain unclear. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, controlled phase II trial to confirm the feasibility of LADG in terms of technical safety, and short-term surgical outcomes were investigated. Methods Eligibility criteria included pre-operatively diagnosed advanced gastric cancer that could be treated by distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection; MP, SS, and SE without involvement of other organs; and N0–2 and M0. Patients aged 20–80 years were pre-operatively randomized. Results In total, 180 patients were registered and randomized to the open (89 patients) and laparoscopic arms (91 patients). Among 91 patients in the laparoscopic arm, 86 underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy according to the study protocol. Regarding the primary endpoint of the phase II trial, the proportion of patients with either anastomotic leakage or pancreatic fistula was 4.7 % (4/86). The grade 3 or higher morbidity rate, including systemic and local complications, was 5.8 %. Conversion to open surgery was required for 1 patient (1.2 %), without any intra-operative complication. The post-operative mortality rate was 0, and no patient required readmission for surgical complications within 6 months after initial discharge. Conclusions The technical safety of LADG with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer was demonstrated. A phase III trial to confirm the non-inferiority of this procedure to open gastrectomy in terms of long-term outcomes is ongoing. Registered Number: UMIN 000003420 ( www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ).

BackgroundRadical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy represents the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrate that minimally invasive surgery is inferior to laparotomy with regards to disease-free and overall survival.Primary ObjectiveTo investigate the oncologic safety of robot-assisted surgery for early-stage cervical cancer as compared with standard laparotomy.Study HypothesisRobot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is non-inferior to laparotomy in regards to recurrence-free survival with the advantage of fewer post-operative complications and superior patient-reported outcomes.Trial DesignProspective, multi-institutional, international, open-label randomized clinical trial. Consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer will be assessed for eligibility and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. Institutional review board approval will be required from all participating institutions. The trial is coordinated from Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaWomen over 18 with cervical cancer FIGO (2018) stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous will be included. Women are not eligible if they have evidence of metastatic disease, serious co-morbidity, or a secondary invasive neoplasm in the past 5 years.Primary EndpointRecurrence-free survival at 5 years between women who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer.Sample SizeThe clinical non-inferiority margin in this study is defined as a 5-year recurrence-free survival not worsened by >7.5%. With an expected recurrence-free survival of 85%, the study needs to observe 127 events with a one-sided level of significance (α) of 5% and a power (1−β) of 80%. With 5 years of recruitment and 3 years of follow-up, the necessary number of events will be reached if the study can recruit a total of 768 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsTrial launch is estimated to be May 2019 and the trial is estimated to close in May 2027 with presentation of data shortly thereafter.Trial RegistrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03719547).

Background For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients ( n  = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE ( n  = 109) or MIE ( n  = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station. Conclusion This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the differences in survival between these two approaches are currently lacking. From September 2017 to January 2020, 300 patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ were enrolled and randomized to either the robotic (RDG) or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) group (NCT03313700). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints reported here are the 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. The remaining secondary outcomes include intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, quality of lymphadenectomy, and cost differences, which have previously been reported. There were 283 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RDG group: n  = 141; LDG group: n  = 142). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The 3-year DFS rates were 85.8% and 73.2% in the RDG and LDG groups, respectively ( p  = 0.011). Multivariable Cox regression model including age, tumor size, sex, ECOG PS, lymphovascular invasion, histology, pT stage, and pN stage showed that RDG was associated with better 3-year DFS (HR: 0.541; 95% CI: 0.314-0.932). The RDG also improved the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate (RDG vs. LDG: 12.1% vs. 21.1%; HR: 0.546, 95% CI: 0.302-0.990). Compared to LDG, RDG demonstrated non-inferiority in 3-year DFS rate. Robotic surgery has been demonstrated to improve short-term outcomes for patients with gastric cancer who received a gastrectomy, but the long-term effects are less clear. Here, the authors report the survival outcomes of their phase 2 randomized controlled trial comparing robotic to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Backgrounds No confirmatory randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) compared with open distal gastrectomy (ODG). We performed an RCT to confirm that LADG is not inferior to ODG in efficacy. Methods We conducted a multi-institutional RCT. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma in the middle or lower third of the stomach, clinical stage I tumor. Patients were preoperatively randomized to ODG or LADG. This study is now in the follow-up stage. The primary endpoint is relapse-free survival (RFS) and the primary analysis is planned in 2018. Here, we compared the surgical outcomes of the two groups. This trial was registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000003319. Results Between March 2010 and November 2013, 921 patients (LADG 462, ODG 459) were enrolled from 33 institutions. Operative time was longer in LADG than in ODG (median 278 vs. 194 min, p  < 0.001), while blood loss was smaller (median 38 vs. 115 ml, p  < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall proportion with in-hospital grade 3–4 surgical complications (3.3 %: LADG, 3.7 %: ODG). The proportion of patients with elevated serum AST/ALT was higher in LADG than in ODG (16.4 vs. 5.3 %, p  < 0.001). There was no operation-related death in either arm. Conclusions This trial confirmed that LADG was as safe as ODG in terms of adverse events and short-term clinical outcomes. LADG may be an alternative procedure in clinical IA/IB gastric cancer if the noninferiority of LADG in terms of RFS is confirmed.

Introduction Total mesorectal excision (TME) is an essential component of surgical management of rectal cancer. Both open and laparoscopic TME have been proven to be oncologically safe. However, it remains a challenge to achieve complete TME with clear circumferential resections margin (CRM) with the conventional transabdominal approach, particularly in mid and low rectal tumours. Transanal TME (TaTME) was developed to improve oncological and functional outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Methods An international, multicentre, superiority, randomised trial was designed to compare TaTME and conventional laparoscopic TME as the surgical treatment of mid and low rectal carcinomas. The primary endpoint is involved CRM. Secondary endpoints include completeness of mesorectum, residual mesorectum, morbidity and mortality, local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival, percentage of sphincter-saving procedures, functional outcome and quality of life. A Quality Assurance Protocol including centralised MRI review, histopathology re-evaluation, standardisation of surgical techniques, and monitoring and assessment of surgical quality will be conducted. Discussion The difference in involvement of CRM between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favour of the TaTME. TaTME is therefore expected to be superior to laparoscopic TME in terms of oncological outcomes in case of mid and low rectal carcinomas.

Background Laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery leads to rapid recovery and low complication rates. An alternative to fixate the mesh is using a self-fixated mesh. Methods From April 2021 to June 2024, we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing self-adhesive mesh (Adhesix™) with self-gripping mesh (Progrip™) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery (TAPP and TEP). Adult patients scheduled for day surgery were included in the study with a 1-year follow up. The primary endpoint was the number of analgesics (Paracetamol or Ibuprofen) used during the first post-operative week. Secondary outcomes were pain-related issues, complications, and recurrence rate. Results A total of 174 patients participated; 90 received Adhesix™ (group A) and 84 Progrip™ (Group P). Forty-six (26.4%) patients had recurrent hernia, 68 (39.1%) had unilateral and 60 (34.5%) had bilateral primary hernias. A total of 156 (90%) patients completed follow up. The number of analgesics during the first post-operative week was comparable between groups (P 22.9, A 21.2 tablets,  p  = 0.461). Group P used more analgesics during day 1, after which no difference was observed. In general, all participants used analgesics after surgery regularly for 10.8 days (SD 10.6) and occasionally for 15.9 days (SD 16.9). Time to return to work and normal activities was 16.1 days (SD 10.8) and 16.6 days (SD 9.6), respectively. More patients in group P reported moderate or severe pain (numeric rating scale > 3) during exercise 3 months after surgery (P 15.4%, A 3.1%,  p  = 0.035), although no difference was observed at 1 year after surgery. Both groups had significantly improved quality of life measures in physical aspects of the RAND-36 Item Health Survey after 3 months. Two recurrences, one in each group (1.1%) occurred. Conclusion The use of Adhesix was non-inferior to Progrip in laparoscopic surgery. Surgery using either mesh led to rapid recovery and improved quality of life. This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05091853). Graphical abstract

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.