Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection
Do you wish to request the book?
Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection
2020
Overview
BackgroundWhile the ACOSOG and ALaCaRT trials found that laparoscopic resections for rectal cancer failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of pathologic outcomes when compared with open resections, the COLOR II and COREAN studies demonstrated non-inferiority of clinical outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the value of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in rectal cancer surgery. We analyzed differences in pathologic and clinical outcomes between open versus MIS resections for rectal cancer.MethodsWe identified patients who underwent resection for stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database (2010–2015). Surgical approach was categorized as open or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to assess differences in outcomes and survival. Analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat fashion.ResultsA total of 31,190 patients who underwent rectal adenocarcinoma resection were identified, of whom 52.8% underwent open resection and 47.2% underwent MIS resection (31.0% laparoscopic, 16.2% robotic). After adjustment for patient, tumor, and institutional characteristics, MIS approaches were associated with significantly decreased risk of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.94), increased likelihood of harvesting ≥ 12 lymph nodes (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04–1.21), shorter length of stay (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.53–0.62), and improved overall survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83–0.98).ConclusionsMIS approaches to rectal cancer resection were associated with improved pathologic and clinical outcomes when compared to the open approach. In this nationwide, facility-based sample of cancer cases in the United States, our data suggest superiority of MIS techniques for rectal cancer treatment.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
