Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision:A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677

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

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer

Background: Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients. Methods/Study design: In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients. Discussion: The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery. Trial registration:NCT02371304, registration date: February 2015

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study)

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. DISCUSSION: The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019

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

Abandonment of Routine Radiotherapy for Nonlocally Advanced Rectal Cancer and Oncological Outcomes

Importance: Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy was routinely applied for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer (cT1-3N0-1M0 with &gt;1 mm distance to the mesorectal fascia) in the Netherlands following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial. This policy has shifted toward selective application after guideline revision in 2014. Objective: To determine the association of decreased use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with cancer-related outcomes and overall survival at a national level. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, population-based, nationwide cross-sectional cohort study analyzed Dutch patients with rectal cancer who were treated in 2011 with a 4-year follow-up. A similar study was performed in 2021, analyzing all patients that were surgically treated in 2016. From these cohorts, all patients with cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and radiologically unthreatened mesorectal fascia were included in the current study. The data of the 2011 cohort were collected between May and October 2015, and the data of the 2016 cohort were collected between October 2020 and November 2021. The data were analyzed between May and October 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 4-year local recurrence and overall survival rates. Results: Among the 2011 and 2016 cohorts, 1199 (mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years; 430 women [36%]) of 2095 patients (57.2%) and 1576 (mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years; 547 women [35%]) of 3057 patients (51.6%) had cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and were included, with proportions of neoadjuvant radiotherapy of 87% (2011) and 37% (2016). Four-year local recurrence rates were 5.8% and 5.5%, respectively (P =.99). Compared with the 2011 cohort, 4-year overall survival was significantly higher in the 2016 cohort (79.6% vs 86.4%; P &lt;.001), with lower non-cancer-related mortality (13.8% vs 6.3%; P &lt;.001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that an absolute 50% reduction in radiotherapy use for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer did not compromise cancer-related outcomes at a national level. Optimizing clinical staging and surgery following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial has potentially enabled safe deintensification of treatment.</p

Cumulative 5-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Biological Mesh with Primary Perineal Wound Closure after Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection (BIOPEX-study)

Objective: To determine long-term outcomes of a randomized trial (BIOPEX) comparing biological mesh and primary perineal closure in rectal cancer patients after extralevator abdominoperineal resection and preoperative radiotherapy, with a primary focus on symptomatic perineal hernia. Summary Background Data: BIOPEX is the only randomized trial in this field, which was negative on its primary endpoint (30-day wound healing). Methods: This was a posthoc secondary analysis of patients randomized in the BIOPEX trial to either biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts) or primary perineal closure (n = 54; 1 dropout). Patients were followed for 5 years. Actuarial 5-year probabilities were determined by the Kaplan-Meier statistic. Results: Actuarial 5-year symptomatic perineal hernia rates were 7% (95% CI, 0-30) after biological mesh closure versus 30% (95% CI, 10-49) after primary closure (P = 0.006). One patient (2%) in the biomesh group underwent elective perineal hernia repair, compared to 7 patients (13%) in the primary closure group (P = 0.062). Reoperations for small bowel obstruction were necessary in 1/48 patients (2%) and 5/53 patients (9%), respectively (P = 0.208). No significant differences were found for chronic perineal wound problems, locoregional recurrence, overall survival, and main domains of quality of life and functional outcome. Conclusions: Symptomatic perineal hernia rate at 5-year follow-up after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer was significantly lower after biological mesh closure. Biological mesh closure did not improve quality of life or functional outcomes