United States-Based Colorectal Cancer Surgical Trials Lack Representation and Adequate Reporting of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Participants: Systematic Review and Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established National Institute of Health Revitalization Act, which aims to include ethnic and racial minority representation in surgical trials, racial and ethnic enrollment disparities persist. OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients from minority races and ethnicities that are included in colorectal cancer surgical trials and reporting characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Search was performed using MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria included 1) trials performed in the United States between January 1, 2000, and May 30, 2022; 2) patients with colorectal cancer diagnosis; and 3) surgical intervention, technique, or postoperative outcome. Trials evaluating chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or other nonsurgical interventions were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Pooled proportion and regression analysis was performed to identify the proportion of patients by race and ethnicity included in surgical trials and the association of year of publication and funding source. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trials reporting race and ethnicity and proportion of participants by race and ethnicity included in surgical trials. RESULTS: We screened 10,673 unique publications, of which 80 were examined in full text. Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Ten (66.7%) trials did not report race, 3 reported races as a proportion of White participants only, and 3 reported 3 or more races. There was no description of ethnicity in 11 (73.3%) trials, with 2 describing "non-Caucasian" as ethnicity and 2 describing only Hispanic ethnicity. Pooled proportion of White participants was 81.3%, of Black participants was 6.2%, of Asian participants was 3.6%, and of Hispanic participants was 3.5%. LIMITATIONS: A small number of studies was identified that reported racial or ethnic characteristics of their participants. CONCLUSIONS: Both race and ethnicity are severely underreported in colorectal cancer surgical trials. To improve outcomes and ensure the inclusion of vulnerable populations in innovative technologies and novel treatments, reporting must be closely monitored.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.