Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Alberto Arezzo ; Roberto Passera ; Alessandro Salvai ; Simone Arolfo…
• 关键词：Rectal cancer ; Rectal neoplasms ; Laparoscopy ; Meta ; analysis ; Systematic review
• 刊名：Surgical Endoscopy
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：February 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：29
• 期：2
• 页码：334-348
• 全文大小：1,907 KB
• 参考文献：1. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK (1998) Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978-997. Arch Surg 133:894-99 CrossRef
  2. Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS et al (2000) The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer 88:2398-424 CrossRef
  3. Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M (2013) Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 27:1485-502 CrossRef
  4. Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M (2013) Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J 1:32-7 CrossRef
  5. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224-229 CrossRef
  6. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718-726 CrossRef
  7. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050-059 CrossRef
  8. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Colon cancer laparoscopic or open resection study group (COLOR). Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477-84 CrossRef
  9. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:65-4 CrossRef
  10. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008-012 CrossRef
  11. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 1 Jan 2012
  12. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603-05 CrossRef
  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177-88 CrossRef
  14. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13 CrossRef
  15. Schwarzer G (2007) Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News 7:40-5
  16. Wu WX, Sun YM, Hua YB et al (2004) Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection of rectal carcinoma: a clinical comparative study. World J Gastroenterol 10:1167-170
  17. Breukink SO, Pierie JP, Grond AJ et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a case-control study. Int J Co
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Surgery
  Gynecology
  Gastroenterology
  Hepatology
  Proctology
  Abdominal Surgery
  
• 出版者：Springer New York
• ISSN：1432-2218

文摘

Background This review of cancer outcomes is based on key literature searches of the medical databases and meta-analysis of short-term benefits of laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment. Methods We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) published between January 2000 and September 2013 listed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42013005076). The primary endpoint was clearance of the circumferential resection margin. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model, and sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model; subgroup analysis was performed on subsets of patients with extraperitoneal cancer of the rectum. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used as outcome measures. Results Twenty-seven studies (10,861 patients) met the inclusion criteria; eight were RCTs (2,659 patients). The RCTs reported involvement of the circumferential margin in 7.9?% of patients who underwent laparoscopic and in 6.9?% of those undergoing open surgery; the overall RR was 1.00 (95?% confidence interval 0.73-.35) with no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis of patients with extraperitoneal cancer showed equivalent involvement of the circumferential margin in the two treatment groups. Although significantly more lymph nodes were retrieved in the surgical specimen after open surgery, the MD of ?.56 was of marginal clinical significance. The sensitivity and subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the rate of R0 resections, distal margin clearance, mesorectal fascia integrity, or local recurrence at 5?years. Conclusions Based on the evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs, the short-term benefit and oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal resection appear to be equivalent to open surgery, with some evidence potentially pointing to comparable long-term outcomes and oncological adequacy in selected patients with primary resectable rectal cancer.