Transitional impact of short‐ and long‐term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer from Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0404

Abstract Background The JCOG0404 randomized controlled trial conducted to compare laparoscopic surgery (LAP) with open surgery (OP) for stage II/III colon cancer showed better short‐term outcomes and equal long‐term outcomes of LAP versus OP. Technical instrumentation of surgery and anticancer agents given during the registration period might have affected the outcomes. Aim To evaluate outcomes according to the registration periods. Methods The overall registration period was divided into three periods (first: 2004‐2005, second: 2006‐2007 and third: 2008‐2009). Short‐term and long‐term outcomes were compared between registration periods. Results In total, 1057 patients were registered. Numbers of patients undergoing each approach for each of the three periods (1st/2nd/3rd) were 528 for OP (106/244/178) and 529 for LAP (106/246/177). Operation time (minutes) did not change between the periods for OP (160/156/161) or LAP (205/211/219). Blood loss (mL) gradually decreased in the latter two periods: (119/80/75) for OP and (35/28/25) for LAP. Incidence of complications (%) decreased in the latter periods for OP (27.6/20.3/21.3), whereas that for LAP remained consistently low (14.3/14.8/13.6). There was no particular trend in 5‐year overall survival and recurrence‐free survival depending on the period regardless of treatment. D3 dissection rates were 95% or more for all periods in both groups. Conclusions Operation time and survival rates did not change over time, whereas blood loss in OP improved in the latter periods. Quality control applied in this trial might have been effective in producing such safe endpoints. (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00147134, UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number C000000105.

Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic palliative resection for patients with incurable, asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer: A multicenter study in Japan

Objective: This retrospective multicenter study compared short- and long-term results between Japanese patients with asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer who underwent palliative laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus those who underwent conventional open surgery (OS). Methods: Among 968 patients treated for stage IV colorectal cancer from January 2006 to December 2007 in 41 surgical units that were participating in the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery group, we studied 398 patients who received palliative resection of their asymptomatic primary colorectal tumor. Results: We analyzed data from patients undergoing LS (LS group, n=106) and OS (OS group, n=292). Fourteen (13.2%) LS group patients were converted to OS. Although the differences between groups for postoperative complications were not significant, the mean time to solid food intake and postoperative length of hospital stay for the LS group were significantly shorter than those for the OS group (2 vs. 3 days, p<0.0001; 13 vs. 16 days, p<0.0001, respectively). The LS group patients experienced a longer median survival time than that of the OS group (24.5 vs. 23.9 months, p=0.0357). Conclusions: Laparoscopic palliative resection (LS) offers advantages for short-term outcomes and no disadvantages for long-term outcomes. The use of laparoscopic procedures to treat asymptomatic, incurable stage IV colorectal cancer appears to be acceptable

Impact of Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification on Laparoscopic Resections for Rectal Cancer in Japan: The EnSSURE Study

Objective:. This cohort study investigated short- and long-term postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic procedures for rectal cancer performed with versus without certified surgeons. Background:. In Japan, the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) evaluates surgical skills deemed essential for laparoscopic surgery; however, it is unknown whether this certification contributes to procedural safety. Methods:. Outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resections for cStage II and III rectal cancer performed from 2014 to 2016 at 56 Japanese hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The impact of having versus not having certified surgeons on postoperative complications and other short- and long-term outcomes were assessed. In cases with ESSQS-certified surgeons, surgeons attended surgery in the capacity of an operator, assistant, scope operator, or advisor. Results:. Overall, 3188 procedures were analyzed, with 2644 procedures performed with and 544 without ESSQS-certified surgeons. A multivariate logistic regression model showed that the adjusted odds ratio of postoperative complications after procedures performed with ESSQS-certified surgeons was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.91; P = 0.009). The adjusted odds ratios for conversion and pathological R0 resection rates with ESSQS-certified surgeons were 0.20 (P < 0.001) and 2.10 (P = 0.04), respectively. Multiple linear regression analyses showed significantly shorter surgical duration and more harvested lymph nodes for operations performed with ESSQS-certified surgeons. Multivariate Cox regression showed that the adjusted hazard ratios for poor overall and recurrence-free survival after operations performed with ESSQS-certified surgeons were 0.88 (P = 0.35) and 1.04 (P = 0.71), respectively. Conclusions:. This study showed the superiority of the short-term postoperative results for laparoscopic rectal procedures performed with ESSQS-certified surgeons

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care