Controversies in Surgical Oncology: Does the Minimally Invasive Approach for Rectal Cancer Provide Equivalent Oncologic Outcomes Compared with the Open Approach?
Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has been shown to improve short-term outcomes and yield equivalent long-term oncologic results. It remains to be seen if oncologic outcomes for the minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer are equivalent to traditional open rectal resection.
We conducted a systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five key questions comparing minimally invasive and open oncologic outcomes for rectal cancer were specifically analyzed. A meta-analysis was not done due to heterogeneity of studies.
Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including six randomized controlled trials. The laparoscopic approach to rectal resection was not more likely than the traditional open approach to have clear circumferential and distal margins, a complete total mesorectal excision grade, ≥ 12 lymph nodes in the resected specimen, reduced local recurrence rates, or reduced overall survival rates. Two randomized trials revealed that successful laparoscopic resection was not noninferior to open.
Caution should be exercised when choosing surgical options for rectal cancer. Results of randomized trials could not prove that short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were equivalent to those after open surgery even when performed by surgeons with laparoscopic expertise. However, reported long-term data have not shown a difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery. Future advances in minimally invasive technology may improve oncologic margins but these will require careful study and scrutiny.
No grant support or other funds were received for this work.
Dr. Cleary has received honoraria from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. for educational speaking. He has received research funding from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr. Morris has no conflict of interest to disclose. Dr. Chang is a consultant to Johnson and Johnson and MORE Health. He has received research funding from Agendia. Dr. Halverson has no conflict of interest to disclose.
- 11.Van der Pas MHGM, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Macy AM, Hop WCJ, Bonjer HJ, for the Colorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rickles AS, Dietz DW, Chang GJ, et al. On Behalf of The Consortium for Optimizing the Treatment of Rectal Cancer (OSTRiCh). Ann Surg. 262:891–8.Google Scholar
- 19.Steele SR, Stein SL, Bordeianou LG, Johnson E, Herzig DO, Champagne BJ; American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ Young Surgeons Committee. The impact of practice environment on laparoscopic colectomy utilization following colorectal residency: a survey of the ASCRS Young Surgeons. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(3):374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jul 23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Gezen C, Altuntas YE, Kement M, Aksakal N, Okkabaz N, Vural S, Oncel M. Laparoscopic and conventional resections for low rectal cancers: a retrospective analysis on perioperative outcomes, sphincter preservation, and oncologic results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:625–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B, et al; on behalf of the MERCURY II Study Group. Prospective validation of a low rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging staging system and development of a local recurrence risk stratification model. The MERCURY II Study. Ann Surg. 2016;263:751–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care: Addressing the challenges of an aging population; Board on Health Care Services; Institute of Medicine; Levit L, Balogh E, Nass S, Ganz PA, eds. Washington (DC); National Academies Press (US); 2013 Dec.Google Scholar