Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 4148–4157 | Cite as

Oncological outcome following laparoscopic versus open surgery for cancer in the transverse colon: a nationwide cohort study

  • Andreas Nordholm-Carstensen
  • Kristian Kiim Jensen
  • Peter-Martin Krarup
Article

Abstract

Background

The literature on transverse colonic cancer resection is sparse. The optimal surgical approach for this disease is thus unknown. This study aimed to examine laparoscopic versus open surgery for transverse colonic cancer.

Methods

This study was a nationwide, retrospective cohort study of all patients registered with a transverse colonic cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2013. Data were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, the Danish Pathology Registry, Danish National Patient Registry, and patients’ records. Main outcome measures were surgical resection plane, lymph node yield, and long-term cancer recurrence and survival.

Results

In total, 357 patients were included. Non-mesocolic resection was more frequent with laparoscopic compared with open resection (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.29–4.60, P = 0.006). Median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher after open compared with laparoscopic resection (22 versus 19, P = 0.03). Non-mesocolic resection (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.25–4.79, P = 0.01) and increasing tumor stage (P < 0.001) were factors associated with recurrence. Cancer recurrence was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 4.32, 95% CI 2.75–6.79, P < 0.001). Overall mortality was, however, not associated with the surgical approach or surgical plane.

Conclusions

Although associated with a lower rate of mesocolic resection plane and fewer lymph nodes harvested, laparoscopic surgery for transverse colonic cancers led to similar long-term results compared with open resection.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer Laparoscopy Survival Recurrence 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Andreas Nordholm-Carstensen, Kristian Kiim Jensen, and Peter-Martin Krarup declare that they have no conflict of interest and financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2018_6159_MOESM1_ESM.docx (77 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 77 KB)
464_2018_6159_MOESM2_ESM.docx (144 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 143 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Forman D, Bray F (2012) International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN. Available at http://www.globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 20 Mar, 2015
  2. 2.
    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, Group MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    COLOR Study Group (2000) COLOR: a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open resection for colon cancer. Dig Surg 17:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW, Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R, Jr, Peters W, Ota D (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    West NP, Morris EJ, Rotimi O, Cairns A, Finan PJ, Quirke P (2008) Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 9:857–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Athanasiou CD, Robinson J, Yiasemidou M, Lockwood S, Markides GA (2017) Laparoscopic vs open approach for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long term outcomes. Int J Surg 41:78–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danish Colorectal Cancer Group. Annual Report (2011). Available at http://www.dccg.dk/03_Publikation/02_arsraport_pdf/aarsrapport_2011.pdf [in Danish]. Accessed 27 Oct 2017
  8. 8.
    Danish Colorectal Cancer Group. Annual Report 2013. Available at http://www.dccg.dk/03_Publikation/2013.pdf [in Danish]. Accessed 27 Oct 2017
  9. 9.
    Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Buchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schemper M, Smith TL (1996) A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 17:343–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao L, Wang Y, Liu H, Chen H, Deng H, Yu J, Xue Q, Li G (2014) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for advanced transverse colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1003–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandez-Cebrian JM, Gil Yonte P, Jimenez-Toscano M, Vega L, Ochando F (2013) Laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon carcinoma: a surgical challenge but oncologically feasible. Colorectal Dis 15:e79-83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chand M, Siddiqui MR, Rasheed S, Brown G, Tekkis P, Parvaiz A, Qureshi T (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the role of laparoscopic surgical resection of transverse colon tumours. Surg Endosc 28:3263–3272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, Kirkegaard-Klitbo A, Tenma JR, Wilhelmsen M, Rasmussen LA, Jepsen LV, Kristensen B, Gogenur I, Copenhagen Complete Mesocolic Excision Study, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2016) Short-term outcomes after complete mesocolic excision compared with ‘conventional’ colonic cancer surgery. Br J Surg 103:581–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, Bonjer HJ (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Frasson M, Di Serio C, Di Carlo V (2005) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg 242:890–895CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD003145.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensen KK, Krarup PM, Scheike T, Jorgensen LN, Mynster T (2016) Incisional hernias after open versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a nationwide cohort study. Surg Endosc 30:4469–4479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen KK, Andersen P, Erichsen R, Scheike T, Iversen LH, Krarup PM (2016) Decreased risk of surgery for small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery compared with open surgery: a nationwide cohort study. Surg Endosc 30:5572–5582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stucky CC, Pockaj BA, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Sargent DJ, O’Connell MJ, Beart RW, Skibber JM, Nelson H, Weeks JC (2011) Long-term follow-up and individual item analysis of quality of life assessments related to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in the COST trial 93-46-53 (INT 0146). Ann Surg Oncol 18(9):2422–2431CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryZealand University HospitalKøgeDenmark
  2. 2.Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryZealand University HospitalRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Danish Colorectal Cancer GroupCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations