COLOR III: a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer

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.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.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

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer:a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection:3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression. RESULTS: The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account. CONCLUSION: The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands

Three-year outcome after transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer : a multicenter comparative analysis

Altres ajuts: This work has been funded by the Resident Award "Emili Letang," granted by Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Research, Innovation, and Education Departments (Grant number: 25_delacyoliverb_250709_cgicm_pfr2018). The funder of this study supported the data collection and database management.For patients with mid and distal rectal cancer, robust evidence on long-term outcome and causal treatment effects of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is lacking. This multicentre retrospective cohort study aimed to assess whether TaTME reduces locoregional recurrence rate compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME). Consecutive patients with rectal cancer within 12 cm from the anal verge and clinical stage II-III were selected from three institutional databases. Outcome after TaTME (Nov 2011 - Feb 2018) was compared to a historical cohort of patients treated with LapTME (Jan 2000 - Feb 2018) using the inverse probability of treatment weights method. The primary endpoint was three-year locoregional recurrence. A total of 710 patients were analysed, 344 in the TaTME group and 366 in the LapTME group. At 3 years, cumulative locoregional recurrence rates were 3.6% (95% CI, 1.1-6.1) in the TaTME group and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.5-12.7) in the LapTME group (HR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23-0.69; p = 0.001). Three-year cumulative disease-free survival rates were 74.3% (95% CI, 68.8-79.8) and 68.6% (95% CI, 63.7-73.5) (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.02; p = 0.078) and three-year overall survival 87.2% (95% CI, 82.7-91.7) and 82.2% (95% CI, 78.0-86.2) (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03; p = 0.077), respectively. In patients who underwent sphincter preservation procedures, TaTME was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; p = 0.033). These findings suggest that TaTME may improve locoregional recurrence and disease-free survival rates among patients with mid and distal locally advanced rectal cancer

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Introduction: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate. Results: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001. Conclusion: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR