Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

National implementation of an optimal standardised technique for right-sided colon cancer:protocol of an interventional sequential cohort study (Right study)

Purpose: Minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with right-sided colon cancer. This operation has evolved during recent decades, with many innovations and improvements but this has also resulted in high variability of uptake with subsequent substantial variableness. The aim of this ongoing study is to identify current surgical variations, determine the most optimal and standardised MIRH and nationally train and implement that technique to improve short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes. Methods: The Right study is a national multicentre prospective interventional sequential cohort study. Firstly, current local practice was evaluated. Subsequently, a standardised surgical technique for right-sided colon cancer was determined using the Delphi consensus method, and this procedure was trained during hands-on courses. The standardised MIRH will be implemented with proctoring (implementation cohort), after which the performance will be monitored (consolidation cohort). Patients who will receive a minimally invasive (extended) right hemicolectomy for cT1-3N0-2M0 colon cancer will be included. The primary outcome is patient safety reflected in the 90-day overall complication rate according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes will include intraoperative complications, 90-day mortality rate, number of resected tumour-positive lymph nodes, completeness of mesocolic excision, surgical quality score, locoregional and distant recurrence and 5-year overall survival. A total number of 1095 patients (365 per cohort) will be included. Discussion: The Right study is designed to safely implement the best surgical practice concerning patients with right-sided colon cancer aiming to standardise and improve the surgical quality of MIRH at a national level. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889456, May 2021.</p

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

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Clinical consequences of diagnostic variability in the histopathological evaluation of early rectal cancer

Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss’ Kappa- (ĸ) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or ĸ 0.530–0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (ĸ = 0.530, 95% CI 0.375–0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated.</p

Clinical consequences of diagnostic variability in the histopathological evaluation of early rectal cancer

Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss’ Kappa- (ĸ) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or ĸ 0.530–0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (ĸ = 0.530, 95% CI 0.375–0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated.</p

Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases:A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. Methods: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009–2015 and 2016–2021). Results: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009–2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016–2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009–2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96). In 2016–2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76–2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76–1.32). Conclusion: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.</p

Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases:A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. Methods: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009–2015 and 2016–2021). Results: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009–2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016–2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009–2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96). In 2016–2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76–2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76–1.32). Conclusion: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.</p