Ability of minimally invasive surgery to decrease incisional surgical site infection occurrence in patients with colorectal cancer and other gastroenterological malignancies.

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most important complications of surgery for gastroenterological malignancies because it leads to a prolonged postoperative hospital stay and increased inpatient costs. Furthermore, SSI can delay the initiation of postoperative treatments, including adjuvant chemotherapy, negatively affecting patient prognosis. Identifying the risk factors for SSI is important to improving intra- and postoperative wound management for at-risk patients. Methods: Patients with gastroenterological malignancies who underwent surgery at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and categorized according to the presence or absence of incisional SSI. Clinicopathological characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, malignancy location, postoperative blood examination results, operation time, and blood loss volume were compared between groups. The same analysis was repeated of only patients with colorectal malignancies. Results: A total of 528 patients (330 men, 198 women; mean age, 68 ± 11 years at surgery) were enrolled. The number of patients with diseases of the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon and rectum, liver, gallbladder, and pancreas were 25, 150, seven, 255, 51, five, and 35, respectively. Open surgery was performed in 303 patients vs. laparoscopic surgery in 225 patients. An incisional SSI occurred in 46 patients (8.7%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that postoperative hyperglycemia (serum glucose level ≥140 mg/dl within 24 h after surgery), colorectal malignancy, and open surgery were independent risk factors for incisional SSI. In a subgroup analysis of patients with colorectal malignancy, incisional SSI occurred in 27 (11%) patients. Open surgery was significantly correlated with the occurrence of incisional SSI (P = 0.024). Conclusions: Postoperative hyperglycemia and open surgery were significant risk factors for SSI in patients with gastroenterological malignancies. Minimally invasive surgery could reduce the occurrence of incisional SSI.

Clinical impact of lymphocyte/C-reactive protein ratio on postoperative outcomes in patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection.

Cancer-related systemic inflammation influences postoperative outcomes in cancer patients. Although the relationship between inflammation-related markers and postoperative outcomes have been investigated in many studies, their clinical significance remains to be elucidated in rectal cancer patients. We focused on the lymphocyte count/C-reactive protein ratio (LCR) and its usefulness in predicting short- and long-term outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection at our institution between 2010 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. We comprehensively compared the effectiveness of 11 inflammation-related markers, including LCR and other clinicopathological characteristics, in predicting postoperative complications and survival. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that LCR had the highest area under the curve value for predicting the occurrence of postoperative complications. In the multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-4.57, P = 0.031), low tumor location (OR: 2.44, 95% CI 1.23-4.88, P = 0.011), and low LCR (OR: 3.51, 95% CI 1.63-7.58, P = 0.001) were significantly and independently associated with the occurrence of postoperative complications. In addition, multivariate analysis using Cox's proportional hazard regression model for the prediction of survival showed that low LCR (≤ 12,600) was significantly associated with both poor overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.03-4.15, P = 0.041) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 2.21, 95% CI 1.22-4.01, P = 0.009). LCR is a useful marker for predicting both short- and long-term postoperative outcomes in rectal cancer patients who underwent curative surgery.

Establishment and validation of a nomogram for predicting potential lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identifying lateral pelvic lymph node (LPN) metastasis in low rectal cancer is crucial before treatment. Several risk factors and prediction models for LPN metastasis have been reported. However, there is no useful tool to accurately predict LPN metastasis. Therefore, we aimed to construct a nomogram for predicting LPN metastasis in rectal cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the risk factors for potential LPN metastasis by logistic regression analysis in 705 patients who underwent primary resection of low rectal cancer. We included patients at 49 institutes of the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery between June 2010 and February 2012. Clinicopathological factors and magnetic resonance imaging findings were evaluated. The nomogram performance was assessed using the c-index and calibration plots, and the nomogram was validated using an external cohort. RESULTS: In the univariable logistic regression analysis, age, sex, carcinoembryonic antigen, tumor location, clinical T stage, tumor size, circumferential resection margin (CRM), extramural vascular invasion (EMVI), and the short and long axes of LPN and perirectal lymph node (PRLN) were nominated as risk factors for potential LPN metastasis. We identified a combination of the short axis of LPN, tumor location, EMVI, and short axis of PRLN as optimal for predicting potential LPN metastasis and developed a nomogram using these factors. This model had a c-index of 0.74 and was moderately calibrated and well-validated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to construct a well-validated nomogram for predicting potential LPN metastasis in rectal cancer, and its performance was high.

Prognostic Impact of Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection on the Survival of Patients in Low Rectal Cancer Subgroups Based on Lymph Node Size.

BACKGROUND: Lateral pelvic node (LPN) dissection (LPND) is considered a promising technique for treating low rectal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of its prognostic value. Using centrally reviewed preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) images, this study aimed to find the patient population who has benefited from LPND. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MR images of patients from 69 institutes with stage II-III low rectal cancer were reviewed by experienced radiologists. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and short-term outcomes were measured. RESULTS: In total, 731 preoperative MR images were reviewed (excluding patients with short-axis LPN ≥ 10 mm). Of these, 322 underwent total mesorectum excision (TME) without LPND (non-LPND group), and 409 underwent TME with LPND (LPND group). Preoperative treatment was performed for 40% and 25% of patients in the non-LPND and LPND groups, respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications was higher in the LPND group (44.5%) than in the non-LPND group (33.2%; P = 0.002). Among patients with LPNs < 5 mm, OS and RFS curves were not significantly different between the groups. Among patients with LPNs ≥ 5 mm, the LPND group had significantly higher 5-year OS and RFS than the non-LPND group (OS: 81.9% versus 67.3%; RFS: 69.4% versus 51.6%). On multivariate analysis of LPN ≥ 5 mm cases, LPND was independently associated with RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high incidence of postoperative complications, this study showed the prognostic impact of LPND on low rectal cancer patients with LPNs (≥ 5 mm, < 10 mm short axis) measured by experienced radiologists. Trial registration UMIN-ID: UMIN000013919.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone for advanced low rectal cancer: a large multicenter cohort study in Japan.

PURPOSE: To clarify the usefulness of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for low rectal cancer, we investigated the current status of CRT in Japan and its short- and long-term outcomes versus surgery alone for low rectal cancer in a large multicenter cohort study. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2011, data from 1608 patients with clinical Stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma were collected from 69 specialized centers. Of these 1608 patients, 923 were diagnosed with clinical stage III low rectal cancer, 838 were enrolled in this study, divided into the surgery-alone group (n = 649) and preoperative CRT group (n = 189), and analyzed. RESULTS: The following parameters were significantly lower in the CRT versus surgery-alone group: blood loss (210 vs. 431.5 mL), postoperative complications (27.5% vs 39.0%), and the incidence of anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs. 8.8%). The 3-year overall survival, relapse-free and local recurrence-free survival rates did not between the two groups to a statistically significant extent (91.2% vs. 87.4%, 68.8% vs. 66.4%, and 88.2% vs. 88.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed the current status of CRT for low rectal cancer in Japan. The results showed that CRT could be safely performed for advanced low rectal cancer in comparison to surgery alone.

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is widely performed all over the world and several randomized controlled trials have been reported. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery has not been demonstrated sufficiently, especially for the low rectal area. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that laparoscopic primary tumor resection is safe and effective when compared with the open approach for locally advanced low rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with clinical stage II to III low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection were collected and analyzed. The operations were performed from 2010 to 2011. Short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis were analyzed with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 1608 cases collated from 69 institutes, 1500 cases were eligible for analysis. The cases were matched into 482 laparoscopic and 482 open cases. The mean height of the tumor from the anal verge was 4.6 cm. Preoperative treatment was performed in 35% of the patients. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 5.2%. Estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (90 vs 625 mL, P < 0.001). Overall, the occurrence of complications after laparoscopic surgeries was less than that after open surgeries (30.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.005). Three-year overall survival rates were 89.9% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 86.7-92.4] and 90.4% (95% CI 87.4-92.8) in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively, and no significant difference was seen between the 2 groups. No significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the 2 groups (3-year RFS: 70.9%, 68.4 to 74.2 vs 71.8%, 67.5 to 75.7). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery could be considered as a treatment option for advanced, low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, based on the short-term and long-term results of this large cohort study (UMIN-ID: UMIN000013919).

Local control of sphincter-preserving procedures and abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer: Propensity score matched analysis.

Sphincter-preserving procedures (SPPs) for surgical treatment of low-lying rectal tumors have advanced considerably. However, their oncological safety for locally advanced low rectal cancer compared with abdominoperineal resection (APR) is contentious. We retrospectively analyzed cohort data of 1500 consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for stage II-III rectal cancer between 2010 and 2011. Patients with tumors 2-5 cm from the anal verge and clinical stage T3-4 were eligible. Primary outcome was 3-year local recurrence rate, and confounding effects were minimized by propensity score matching. The study involved 794 patients (456 SPPs and 338 APR). Before matching, candidates for APR were more likely to have lower and advanced lesions, whereas SPPs were carried out more often following preoperative treatment, by laparoscopic approach, and at institutions with higher case volume. After matching, 398 patients (199 each for SPPs and APR) were included in the analysis sample. Postoperative morbidity was similar between the SPPs and APR groups (38% vs 39%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.27). Margin involvement was present in eight patients in the SPPs group (one and seven at the distal and radial margins, respectively) and in 12 patients in the APR group. No difference in 3-year local recurrence rate was noted between the two groups (11% vs 14%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42-1.41). In this observational study, comparability was ensured by adjusting for possible confounding factors. Our results suggest that SPPs and APR for locally advanced low rectal cancer have demonstrably equivalent oncological local control.

Short- and mid-term outcomes after early surgical training in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: trainees' performance has no negative impact.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and quality of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery undertaken by trainees. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database, we identified 456 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer between 2006 and 2010. Short-term operative outcomes, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between operations undertaken by the experts (E group) and trainees (T group). Multivariate analyses were performed for RFS and OS in stage II/III disease. RESULTS: Trainees performed 313 surgeries (68.6%) and completed the procedure by themselves in 297 cases (94.9%). Short-term outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, conversion, complication, mortality, and retrieval of less than 12 lymph nodes, were comparable between the E group and the T group. After a median follow-up period of 35 months, RFS and OS were similar between the two groups, with the exception of OS for stage II (3-year OS for E group versus T group, 96.9% versus 87.0%; P=.029); however, this difference disappeared after multivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses showed that positive resection margin and higher log carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were associated with lower RFS. Furthermore, increasing age, positive resection margin, higher log CEA levels, intraoperative surgeon exchange, rectal cancer, postoperative complications, absence of postoperative chemotherapy, and shorter operative time were associated with poor OS. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic operations undertaken by trainees did not negatively affect short-term outcomes and were not associated with impaired mid-term oncologic outcomes. Our findings support early initiation of training in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer treatment.

Laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer performed by trainees: impact on short-term outcomes and selection of suitable patients.

PURPOSE: This study aimed (1) to evaluate the impact of clinical factors, particularly operation by trainees, on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancer, and (2) to determine patients suitable for operation by trainees. METHODS: From a prospectively maintained single-institution database, we identified 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for sigmoid or rectosigmoid cancer between 2007 and 2010. Gender, age, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, tumor size, tumor stage, extent of lymph node dissection, and primary surgeon were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses to determine the predictive significance of these variables on surgical outcomes including operative time, blood loss, complication, postoperative stay, and retrieved lymph nodes. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that location of the tumor in the rectosigmoid (p < 0.001), higher BMI (p < 0.001), operation by trainees (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.002), and greater tumor depth (p = 0.011) were independently predictive of longer operative time. Larger tumor size (p = 0.025) and higher BMI (p = 0.040) were independently predictive of greater blood loss. Larger tumor size was also related to longer postoperative stay (p = 0.001) and a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified operation by trainees as an independent risk factor for longer operative time but with no negative impact on any of the other outcomes. Female patients with a low BMI, sigmoid cancer, shallow tumor depth, and/or small tumor are suitable for operation by trainees.

[Oral capecitabine as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients].

Capecitabine(Xeloda®)has been a global standard drug for the treatment of colon cancer since large randomized controlled trials demonstrated its efficacy and safety in treating patients suffering from the disease. Few studies have been conducted to assess the effects of oral capecitabine treatment on Japanese patients. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate oral capecitabine as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in 50 patients who underwent surgery for stage III colon cancer at our department. Patients received an 8 courses treatment with capecitabine during the study, and the incidence of adverse events, treatment completion rate, and treatment compliance were assessed. Adverse events were reported in a total of 46 patients(92%). The most common adverse event was hand foot syndrome(HFS), reported in 39 patients(78%), whereas bone-marrow toxicity and diarrhea were reported in as few as 2(4%)and 3(6%)patients, respectively. Both these events were mild in severity, and no patients required hospitalization, nor were they associated with treatment-related deaths. The median treatment duration was 8 courses ranging from 3 to 8 courses, and the 8 courses treatment completion rate was 96%. The relative dose intensity, which was used as a treatment compliance index, is expressed as the actual dose taken by the patient divided by the dose planned at baseline. The median and mean of the relative dose intensity were 100%(ranging from 37% to 100%)and 93%, respectively. The results of this study showed that the safety profile of oral capecitabine therapy was generally favorable, with a lower incidence and lesser severity of life-threatening bone-marrow toxicity and diarrhea, although the treatment is still associated with frequent HFS. This is the great advantage of capecitabine when it is used as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer. Indeed, a satisfactory treatment completion rate was achieved in this study while maintaining a sufficient dose and treating HFS, by reducing the dose, interrupting treatment, or providing appropriate corrective measures.

Evaluation of factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: "narrow pelvis" is not a contraindication.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the clinical and anatomical factors, particularly pelvic dimensions that influence the difficulty of performing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: We studied 50 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection with double-stapling technique (DST) anastomosis for rectal cancer between January 2006 and February 2010. Staging was performed by computed tomography. Five pelvic dimensions (anteroposterior and transverse diameters of pelvic inlet and outlet, and pelvic depth) were measured using three-dimensional volume-rendering images. We also examined a number of other clinical characteristics, including gender, history of laparotomy, body mass index (BMI), operator, tumor location, tumor depth, nodal involvement, and tumor diameter. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive significance of these variables on surgical difficulty based on operative time and intraoperative blood loss. RESULTS: Males had significantly shorter pelvic inlets and outlets and significantly greater pelvic depth than females. However, gender did not significantly affect surgical outcomes, although males did tend to experience greater blood loss. Maximum tumor diameter (p=0.014), BMI (p=0.001), operator (p<0.001), and tumor location (p=0.009) were independent predictors of operative time, which, in turn, was related to intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum tumor diameter, BMI, operator experience, and tumor location can be used to predict the operative time required to complete laparoscopic anterior resection with DST anastomosis for rectal cancer, with no correlations between pelvic dimensions and operative time. The difficulty of the procedure was not related to patients' pelvic dimensions, which led us to conclude that "narrow pelvis" is not a contraindication for this surgery. Based on these results, we suggest that laparoscopic anterior resection should be performed by experienced surgeons in patients with large tumors, high BMI, and/or extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of patient and tumor factors, particularly pelvic dimensions, on the difficulties in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer. METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME with intracorporeal rectal transection and double stapling technique (DST) anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor diameter, tumor depth, tumor distance from the anal verge, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and 5 pelvic dimensions (pelvic inlet, pelvic outlet, length of sacrum, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance) were analyzed as variables affecting the difficulties of laparoscopic TME. The dependent variables were pelvic operative time, which was defined as the time required for dissection of the rectum from the pelvis, intracorporeal transaction, and anastomosis. Other dependent variables were intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative morbidity, and anastomotic leakage. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive significance of variables. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that BMI (P < .0001), tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0003), tumor depth (P = .0021), and pelvic outlet (P = .0362) were independently predictive of pelvic operative time. Pelvic operative time was related to intraoperative blood loss (P < .0001). The tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0333, odds ratio [OR]: 1.06) was related to postoperative morbidity, and pelvic outlet was related to anastomotic leakage (P = .0305, OR: 1.13). CONCLUSION: BMI, tumor distance from the anal verge, tumor depth, and pelvic outlet were independent predictors for operative time and morbidity. These factors should be taken into account when planning laparoscopic TME.

Laparoscopic rectal resection for primary rectal cancer combined with open upper major abdominal surgery: initial experience.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although laparoscopy is accepted for treatment of colon cancer, its use for rectal cancer still has technical limitations. Whether a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer is safe and beneficial remains unknown when simultaneous open upper major abdominal surgery is planned. METHODOLOGY: Eight patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection for primary rectal cancer combined with open upper major abdominal surgery. RESULTS: All laparoscopic rectal resections were successful, with no conversion to open surgery. Surgical procedures included two anterior, four low or super-low anterior, and two abdominoperineal resections. There were five simultaneous liver resections for suspected synchronous liver metastasis and three gastrectomies for advanced gastric cancer. Mean operating time was 517 (377-745) min, including 235 (165-330) min for rectal resection. Mean estimated blood loss was 398 (45-1200) mL, including 78 (0-550) mL for rectal resection. There was no postoperative morbidity. Overall morbidity was lower (0 vs. 47%) and time to flatus and liquid diet was faster (2.1 vs. 3.4 and 3.5 vs. 5.6 days, respectively) in the laparoscopic resection group compared with the open group with synchronous open upper major abdominal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary report suggests that laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer combined with open upper major abdominal surgery is a safe and feasible option in selected patients.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal surgery for primary rectal cancer in elderly patients: is it safe and beneficial?

PURPOSE: The role of laparoscopic resection in management of rectal cancer is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer could be safely performed in elderly patients. METHODS: Forty-four elderly patients (> or =75 years) undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection (group A) were compared with 228 younger patients (<75 years) undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection (group B) and 43 elderly patients (> or =75 years) undergoing open rectal resection (group C). RESULTS: The American Society of Anesthesiologists' status was significantly higher in group A than in group B. Operative procedure, operating time, and estimated blood loss were comparable, and overall postoperative complications did not differ significantly between groups A and B (13.6% vs. 11.8%). Operating time was longer (256 vs. 196 min), but estimated blood loss was significantly less (25 vs. 241 ml) in group A than in group C. The rate of postoperative complications was lower (13.6% vs. 25.6%) in group A than in group C, but the difference was not statistically significant. Time to flatus (1.3 vs. 3.7 days), time to liquid diet (2.2 vs. 7.0 days), and hospital stay (19 vs. 22 days) were significantly shorter in group A than in group C. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic rectal resection for elderly patients can be safely performed with similar postoperative outcomes as in younger patients and may have advantages in terms of faster gastrointestinal recovery and shorter length of hospital stay compared with open surgery.

Safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision (TME) with preoperative chemoradiation therapy is an accepted standard treatment for low rectal cancer. Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether preoperative chemoradiation therapy exerted an adverse influence on laparoscopic TME for low rectal cancer. METHODS: We studied 125 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic TME for low rectal cancer. Twenty patients with preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT-Lap group) were compared with 105 patients without chemoradiation therapy (non-CRT-Lap group). RESULTS: Operating time in the CRT-Lap group (276 min, range 160-390 min) was no different from that in the non-CRT-Lap group (263 min, range 143-456 min). The CRT-Lap group had more blood loss during the operation (70 vs. 37 ml), but mean blood loss was <100 ml. The distal tumor margin was longer in the CRT-Lap group (25.8 vs. 18.6 mm). The number of lymph node harvested did not differ between the groups (14.5 vs. 15.4). Conversion to open surgery was necessary only in one case in the non-CRT-Lap group. There was no anastomotic leakage in the CRT-Lap group, whereas three patients (3.1%) had anastomotic leakage in the non-CRT-Lap group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TME with preoperative chemoradiation therapy is a safe procedure with reasonable operating time and does not appear to pose any threat to the surgical and oncologic outcomes.