Search

Background: Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition. Objective: This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer. Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort trial. Setting: Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers. Patients: The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. Results: After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140 min (125–170 min) vs. 140 min (120–160 min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48 h (41–56 h) vs. 48 h (44–62 h), P = 0.049 and 77 h (72–94 h) vs. 82 h (72–96 h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7–9 day) vs. 8 day (7–9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group. Limitations: It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol. Conclusions: These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic colorectal cancer surgery is widely accepted and applied. However, there is still no objective and comprehensive assessment on the data of nationwide multicenter series. Method: A total of 28 medical centers in Mainland China participated in this nationwide retrospective observational study. From the first case performed in each center to the last until December 2017, patients with robotic resection for primary tumor and pathologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma were consecutively enrolled. Clinical, pathological and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 5389 eligible patients were finally enrolled in this study, composing 72.2% of the total robotic colorectal surgery volume of Mainland China in the same period. For resections of one bowel segment of primary tumor, the postoperative mortality rate was 0.08% (4/5063 cases), and the postoperative complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher) was 8.6% (434/5063 cases). For multiple resections, the postoperative mortality rate was 0.6% (2/326 cases), and the postoperative complication rate was 16.3% (53/326 cases). Out of 2956 patients receiving sphincter-preserving surgery in only primary resection, 130 (4.4%) patients had anastomotic leakage. Traditional low anterior resection (tumor at middle rectum) (OR 2.384, P < 0.001), traditional low anterior resection (tumor at low rectum) (OR 1.968, P = 0.017) and intersphincteric resection (OR 5.468, P = 0.006) were significant independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Female gender (OR 0.557, P = 0.005), age ≥ 60 years (OR 0.684, P = 0.040), and preventive stoma (OR 0.496, P = 0.043) were significant independent protective factors. Body mass index, preoperative chemotherapy/radiotherapy, tumor size, and TNM stage did not independently affect the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Conclusion: Robotic colorectal cancer surgery was safe and reliable and might have advantages in patients at high risk of anastomotic leakage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study investigated the influence of PD-L1 genetic variation on the prognosis of R0 resection colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy in real world.Methods: A total of 315 CRC patients underwent R0 surgical resection and received capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy were included. Clinical characteristics were collected from the hospital record system, prognosis was obtained by telephone follow-up. Peripheral blood and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) specimen of CRC patients were performed for the genotyping of polymorphism and mRNA expression of PD-L1, respectively. Analysis on the association between genotypes and prognosis was conducted.Results: The median disease-free survival (DFS) of the 315 CRC patients was 5.1 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 6.0 years. Regarding the PD-L1 gene polymorphism analysis, the prevalence of 901T>C among the CRC patients was as follows: TT genotype 221 cases (70.16%), TC genotype 86 cases (27.30%), CC genotype 8 cases (2.54%), the minor allele frequency was 0.16, the distribution of three genotypes was in accordance with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P = 0.915). Moreover, the prognosis analysis indicated that the median DFS of patients with TT and TC/CC genotype was 5.4 and 4.0 years, respectively (P = 0.008). The median OS of patients with the two genotypes was 6.4 and 5.0 years (P = 0.007). The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the TC/CC genotypes were an independent factor for DFS (odds ratio = 1.56, P = 0.018). Furthermore, the mRNA expression results indicated that the mRNA expression of PD-L1 in PBMC of the patients with TC/CC genotype was significantly higher than patients with TT genotype (P < 0.001).Conclusion: The prognosis of R0 resection CRC patients received capecitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy in real world may be influenced by PD-L1 901T>C polymorphism through mediation of the mRNA expression of PD-L1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but evidence on long-term oncological outcomes is scarce. We aimed to compare surgical quality and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with middle and low rectal cancer. Here we report the short-term outcomes of this trial., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial was done at 11 hospitals in eight provinces of China. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with middle (>5 to 10 cm from the anal verge) or low (≤5 cm from the anal verge) rectal adenocarcinoma, cT1-T3 N0-N1 or ycT1-T3 Nx, and no evidence of distant metastasis. Central randomisation was done by use of an online system and was stratified according to participating centre, sex, BMI, tumour location, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive robotic or conventional laparoscopic surgery. All surgical procedures complied with the principles of total mesorectal excision or partial mesorectal excision (for tumours located higher in the rectum). Lymph nodes at the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery were dissected. In the robotic group, the excision procedures and dissection of lymph nodes were done by use of robotic techniques. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to the treatment allocation but the assessment of pathological outcomes was masked to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was 3-year locoregional recurrence rate, but the data for this endpoint are not yet mature. Secondary short-term endpoints are reported in this article, including two key secondary endpoints: circumferential resection margin positivity and 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher). The outcomes were analysed according in a modified intention-to-treat population (according to the original assigned groups and excluding patients who did not undergo surgery or no longer met inclusion criteria after randomisation). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02817126. Study recruitment has completed, and the follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 17, 2016, and Dec 21, 2020, 1742 patients were assessed for eligibility. 502 patients were excluded, and 1240 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either robotic surgery (620 patients) or laparoscopic surgery (620 patients). 69 patients were excluded (34 in the robotic surgery group and 35 in the laparoscopic surgery group). 1171 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (586 in the robotic group and 585 in the laparoscopic group). Six patients in the robotic surgery group received laparoscopic surgery and seven patients in the laparoscopic surgery group received robotic surgery. 22 (4·0%) of 547 patients in the robotic group had a positive circumferential resection margin as did 39 (7·2%) of 543 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference -3·2 percentage points [95% CI -6·0 to -0·4]; p=0·023). 95 (16·2%) of patients in the robotic group had at least one postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher) within 30 days after surgery, as did 135 (23·1%) of 585 patients in the laparoscopic group (difference -6·9 percentage points [-11·4 to -2·3]; p=0·003). More patients in the robotic group had a macroscopic complete resection than in the laparoscopic group (559 [95·4%] of 586 patients vs 537 [91·8%] of 585 patients, difference 3·6 percentage points [0·8 to 6·5]). Patients in the robotic group had better postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7·0 days [IQR 7·0 to 11·0] vs 8·0 days [7·0 to 12·0], difference -1·0 [95% CI -1·0 to 0·0]; p=0·0001), fewer abdominoperineal resections (99 [16·9%] of 586 patients vs 133 [22·7%] of 585 patients, difference -5·8 percentage points [-10·4 to -1·3]), fewer conversions to open surgery (10 [1·7%] of 586 patients vs 23 [3·9%] of 585 patients, difference -2·2 percentage points [-4·3 to -0·4]; p=0·021), less estimated blood loss (median 40·0 mL [IQR 30·0 to 100·0] vs 50·0 mL [40·0 to 100·0], difference -10·0 [-20·0 to -10·0]; p<0·0001), and fewer intraoperative complications (32 [5·5%] of 586 patients vs 51 [8·7%] of 585 patients; difference -3·3 percentage points [-6·3 to -0·3]; p=0·030) than patients in the laparoscopic group., Interpretation: Secondary short-term outcomes suggest that for middle and low rectal cancer, robotic surgery resulted in better oncological quality of resection than conventional laparoscopic surgery, with less surgical trauma, and better postoperative recovery., Funding: Shenkang Hospital Development Center, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (Shanghai, China), and Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University (Shanghai, China)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Adjuvant chemotherapy with the CapeOX regimen is now widely used for treating colorectal cancer. However, prior studies have demonstrated better efficacy of pre-operative/neoadjuvant chemotherapy without increase of safety risks., Methods and Analysis: This multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase III study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of perioperative CapeOX chemotherapy with the postoperative one for treating patients with locally advanced R0 resectable colon cancers in China. In total 1370 eligible patients will be randomised to: the test group, up to four cycles (every 3 weeks is a cycle, Q3W) of chemotherapy plus radical surgery plus up to four cycles of post-operative chemotherapy; or the control group, radical surgery first, then up to eight cycles of chemotherapy. In each cycle, oxaliplatin will be given at a dose of 130 mg/m 2 through continuous IV infusion for 2 hours on the first day. From day 1 to day 14, capecitabine will be taken orally every morning and evening at a dose of 1000mg/m 2 /d. The primary outcome measure is the 3-year disease free survival. The objective response rate, R0 resection rate, overall survival, as well as the adverse events will also be measured as second endpoints. The study may include two periods. If results of period 1 are not favourable, period 2 will be initiated, recruiting genetically sensitive patients and repeating the same process with period 1., Ethics and Dissemination: Informed consent will be required from, and provided, by all subjects. The study protocol has been approved by the independent ethics committee of Shanghai Fudan University Cancer Centre. This study will clearly demonstrate the potential benefit of perioperative chemotherapy with the CapeOX regimen. Results will be shared among all the participating centres, and with policymakers and the academic community to promote the clinical management of colon cancer., Trial Registration Number: NCT03125980., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)