Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Potential Benefits of Minimally Invasive Laparoscopy in Reducing Local Recurrence After Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer

MASAKATSU NUMATA, HIROSHI TAMAGAWA, KEISUKE KAZAMA, YOSUKE ATSUMI, KENTA IGUCHI, SHO SAWAZAKI, TORU AOYAMA, SUMITO SATO, NOBUHIRO SUGANO, TENI GODAI, AKIO HIGUCHI, YUSUKE SAIGUSA, HIROYUKI SAEKI, TAKANOBU YAMADA, TAKASHI OSHIMA, MANABU SHIOZAWA, NORIO YUKAWA and YASUSHI RINO
Anticancer Research May 2021, 41 (5) 2617-2623; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15042
MASAKATSU NUMATA
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: numata@yokohama-cu.ac.jp
HIROSHI TAMAGAWA
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KEISUKE KAZAMA
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOSUKE ATSUMI
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KENTA IGUCHI
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHO SAWAZAKI
2Department of Surgery, Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TORU AOYAMA
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SUMITO SATO
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NOBUHIRO SUGANO
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TENI GODAI
3Department of Surgery, Fujisawa Shonandai Hospital, Fujisawa, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AKIO HIGUCHI
2Department of Surgery, Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUSUKE SAIGUSA
4Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROYUKI SAEKI
2Department of Surgery, Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKANOBU YAMADA
5Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Hospital, Yokohama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKASHI OSHIMA
5Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Hospital, Yokohama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MANABU SHIOZAWA
5Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Hospital, Yokohama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NORIO YUKAWA
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YASUSHI RINO
1Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Aim: To compare the mid-term oncological results between patients with low rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery (MILS) and those who underwent open surgery (OS). Patients and Methods: Overall, 262 matched patients who underwent primary resection for low rectal cancer between 2000 and 2019 were divided into MILS (n=131; n=107, conventional laparoscopic surgery; n=24, robotic surgery) and OS (n=131) groups. The short- and mid-term outcomes were compared. Results: Similar baseline characteristics were noted. The operative time was longer and blood loss was lesser in the MILS group; the conversion rate was 3.8%. The incidence of postoperative complications was similar. The 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence was noted to be much lower in the MILS group (1.9%) than in the OS group (8.4%). MILS had a significantly low hazard ratio (0.208, p=0.036). Conclusion: MILS has potential benefits in reducing local recurrence of low rectal cancer.

Key Words:
  • Rectal cancer
  • minimally invasive surgery
  • robotic surgery
  • laparoscopic surgery
  • local recurrence

Surgical resection remains an essential treatment modality for rectal cancer. Precise dissection in the narrow pelvic field is technically demanding, and is responsible for negative technical outcomes, such as anastomotic leakage (1), urogenital dysfunction (2), and local recurrence (LR) (3). Among these, LR remains one of the most important outcomes following rectal cancer surgery.

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery (MILS), including conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), has been widely accepted as a useful alternative to surgical resection in rectal cancer. Its elaborate tissue handling and the magnified view can result in better oncological outcomes, especially in the narrow field around the lower rectum.

However, a recent large-scale multicentre study comparing the oncological outcomes between MILS and open surgery (OS) failed to demonstrate a better local control rate for MILS (4-8). The possible explanations are that the merit of MILS may be maximized in the lower rectal area; however, the previous studies included not only low rectal cancer, but also upper and mid rectal cancer. In addition, previous studies reported a learning curve regarding the outcomes of MILS for rectal cancer (9, 10). Both of these large-scale studies included many surgeons from various institutes, which led to a high heterogeneity in the operative method and proficiency levels. A few other studies have shown good long-term outcomes for MILS; the common factor in these studies was that they all were single-institute or small-group studies (11-13).

In the present study, the mid-term oncological outcomes of rectal cancer were compared between MILS and OS. To confirm the potential merits of MILS, the participants included were only those with low rectal cancer, and the procedure was performed in a single study group using the same operative method for MILS.

Patients and Methods

Ethical approval. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Yokohama City University Institutional Review Board approval no. 170700003) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study. The details of the study protocol were provided to patients through a notice board at participating hospitals and were also published on hospital websites.

Study design. Between January 2000 and December 2019, 1,038 patients underwent primary resection for rectal cancer at three group hospitals (Hospitals A, B, and C) related to our Department of Surgery (Yokohama City University). Among these, patients with upper-mid rectal cancer, stage 0 disease, stage I disease, stage IV disease, local resection, R2 resection, and multiple cancer resections (1,038, 344, 7, 210, 74, 7, 12, and 1, respectively) were excluded. Consequently, 383 patients with stage II-III low rectal cancer (the lower border of the tumour lying below the peritoneal reflection) were included in the propensity matching process. Finally, 262 matched patients were divided into two groups: MILS (n=131) and OS (n=131). The MILS group included 107 patients with CLS and 24 with RALS (Figure 1). The median follow-up period for the present study was 35 months.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Patient flow diagram. MILS: Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery; OS: open surgery; CLS: conventional laparoscopic surgery; RALS: robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery; Neo CRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; LLD: lateral lymph node dissection; adjuvant CTx: adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patients were staged using the tumour-node-metastasis staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Cancer Staging Manual (14). This staging system considers lateral lymph node metastasis as distant metastasis; however, the present study considered it as regional metastasis. A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was defined as a pathologically positive radial margin, according to a previous study (15).

Technical qualification of surgeons. In 2004, the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery introduced an endoscopic surgical skill qualification system (JSESQS) (16). Qualified surgeons are certified as having reliable laparoscopic skills to maintain a stable outcome for laparoscopic surgery.

In the present study, six key surgeons performed or directly supervised the operation in CLS, and five of them were JSESQS-qualified. Among a total of 107 CLS operations, 100 operations were performed or directly supervised by JSESQS-qualified surgeons. For RALS, two surgeons directly performed or supervised the operation. In Japan, the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery recommends that all operators for robotic gastrointestinal surgery be JSESQS-qualified surgeons. Five key surgeons were included in the study for OS. There is no clear qualification system for surgeons for OS in Japan.

Operative procedure. The operative procedure of MILS was standardized in our hospital groups; the details of which have been described previously (17). For MILS, initial access to the abdomen was usually achieved via the umbilical port. Once pneumoperitoneum was established, four additional ports were placed. Vessel ligation with lymph node dissection was performed, followed by left-sided colon mobilization. In the mesorectal excision step, a standardized seven-step total mesorectal excision approach was established. For the RALS, the da Vinci Si or Xi surgical system was used. After rectal mobilization and transection, the pathological specimen was extracted via a 4- to 6-cm wide umbilical incision.

In the OS group, a midline laparotomy was the choice for access. Left colon mobilization was followed by main vessel ligation and bowel resection.

In both MILS and OS, reconstruction was performed using the double-stapling technique with a circular stapler.

Indications for MILS. CLS for rectal cancer was first adopted in 2003 and has been performed at all three hospitals. The indications for OS and CLS are not standardized at each hospital but vary depending on the discretion of the surgeon after considering tumour factors, patient preferences, and the experience of the surgeon. RALS was adopted at hospitals A and B in 2017 and has been the first-choice approach for rectal cancer since 2018.

Indications for lateral lymph node dissection and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. According to the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines for the treatment of colorectal cancer (18), lateral lymph node dissection is considered when the lower border of the tumour is located in the lower rectum and has invaded tissue beyond the muscularis propria (cT3-4).

The basic concept of our study group for neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (neo-CRT) was that neo-CRT was considered only when margin positivity was highly suspected based on preoperative imaging findings.

Postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were evaluated using the Clavien–Dindo classification system (19). In this study, grade 3-5 postoperative complications that occurred during hospitalization or within 30 days after surgery or both were recorded.

Outcome of interest. The primary outcome of interest was the cumulative rate of LR, and the secondary outcome was the postoperative complication rate.

Postoperative follow-up. Postoperative follow-up involved measurement of serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels (every 6 months), computed tomography scans (every 6 months), colonoscopies (every year), and routine outpatient visits. LR was defined as any recurrence in the pelvic field, such as presacral, anterior, anastomotic, lateral, and perineal field, detected during the follow-up.

Propensity score matching and statistical analyses. Propensity score matching was performed based on the baseline characteristics. Patients in the MILS group were matched in a 1:1 ratio to those in the OS group based on the following factors: age (75≥/<75 years), neo-CRT (yes/no), pT (1-3/4), pN (negative/positive), lateral lymph node dissection (yes/no), residual tumour (R0/R1), and adjuvant chemotherapy use (yes/no). The patient cohort before matching had a high discrepancy in terms of sex; therefore, sex was excluded as a matching factor to maintain a sufficient number of patients. The standardized difference for all matching factors was confirmed to be less than 0.25. The significance of the association between the study groups and clinicopathological parameters was assessed using Fisher’s exact test or t-tests. The hazard ratio (HR) of cumulative LR was calculated using the Fine–Gray analysis, using death as the competing risk event. Curves for relapse–free survival (RFS), measured from surgery, were constructed using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (20) (Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan) and R software (version 3.4.3). All p-values were two-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Patient characteristics. The baseline characteristics of the MILS and OS groups are presented in Table I. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index (BMI), pT, pN, and adjuvant chemotherapy. The proportion of women (45.0% vs. 71.0%, p<0.001) and the preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen level (3.2 vs. 4.2 ng/dl, p=0.049) were lower in the MILS group than in the OS group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient characteristics (n = 262).

Short-term outcomes. Table II summarizes the short-term outcomes of patients. The operative time was longer (306 vs. 200 min, p<0.001) and blood loss was lesser (20 vs. 290 g, p<0.001) in the MILS group than in the OS group. The rate of lateral lymph node dissection tended to be higher in the MILS group than in the OS group (23.7% vs. 14.5%, p=0.083).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Short-term outcomes (n=262).

The incidence of postoperative complications (12.2% vs. 16.0%, p=0.478) and the types of complications were similar in both groups. A negative CRM was achieved in 97.7% of the patients in both groups. The length of the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the MILS group than in the OS group (15 vs. 19 days, p<0.001).

Survival outcome. The cumulative incidence of LR according to groups is shown in Figure 2. The 2-year cumulative incidence of LR in the MILS and OS groups was 1.9% and 8.4%, respectively. The HR analysis for the LR showed a significantly low LR risk for MILS compared with OS (HR=0.208, 95% confidence interval=0.048-0.899; p=0.036) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Cumulative local recurrence (LR). MILS: minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery; OS: open surgery; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.

RFS analysis showed no significant difference in the 3-year RFS rate between the MILS and OS groups (78.6% vs. 72.4%, p=0.249) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Relapse-free survival (RFS). MILS: Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery; OS: open surgery.

Patterns of recurrence are shown in Table III. In the follow-up period, 19 and 36 patients had developed recurrence in the MILS and OS groups, respectively (p=0.015). The proportion of LR was lower in the MILS group than in the OS group (1.5% vs. 11.5%, p=0.002), while the other patterns were not significantly different.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Pattern of recurrence (n=262).

Discussion

In the present study, considering that the benefit of laparoscopic surgery can be maximized in the low rectal area, and that LR is correlated with the proficiency level of the surgeon, we compared MILS and OS in a single group sharing the same surgical procedures. The 2-year LR was significantly lower in the MILS group than in the OS group (1.9% vs. 8.4%).

In recent large-scale studies, the incidence of LR was 2-5% for the entire rectum (6, 8, 21) and 8-10% for the low rectum (15). Securing the CRM is a key strategy for preventing LR (3), and precise dissection under a magnified view in laparoscopic surgery (22, 23) is expected to contribute to better surgical outcomes. However, previous large-scale, multicentre studies have failed to demonstrate the superiority of laparoscopic surgery in terms of LR (6, 8, 15, 21).

The findings of a recent large-scale, multicentre studies on MILS for rectal cancer are summarized in Table IV. In the Color II trial (21, 24), patients with upper, mid, and low rectal cancer from 30 institutions who underwent CLS or OS were compared. The lower pelvic area was better visualised in CLS than in OS; however, LR occurred in approximately 5% of cases following CLS surgery, which was similar to that found in OS. There was no direct discussion of why CLS failed to lead to a better outcome.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Recent large-scale, multicentre studies regarding minimally invasive laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.

Similarly, in the ALaCaRT (5, 6) and Z6051 (7, 8) trials, patients with upper, mid, and low rectal cancer from 24 and 35 institutions showed a 5% LR incidence following MILS and OS, respectively. In both trials, the authors expected that improved pelvic visualization with laparoscopy would lead to better pelvic dissections and oncological outcomes; however, they were unable to confirm the noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery to OS in terms of CRM, resulting in a similar LR rate. We presume that one of the reasons for this result was surgeon heterogeneity.

In the COREAN (25, 26) trial, surgeons from three participating institutes were qualified through a videotape-based reviewing system that assessed the surgeon’s oncological technique, including quality of total mesorectal excision. In addition, a surgeon was able to join the study after a fellowship training program for learning the standardized procedure. Because this study had a noninferiority design, the authors did not mention the superiority of the MILS approach; however, this homogeneous surgeon quality may have contributed to the relatively low LR rate (3%) after MILS for mid and low rectal cancer.

The level of a surgeon’s proficiency in laparoscopic surgery is difficult to measure objectively; however, it is reflected to a certain extent by the conversion rate (27). Additionally, low rectal cancer (28) and high BMI (29) are risk factors for conversion. The conversion rate in the present study was relatively low for low rectal cancer, compared to previous reports (Table IV). The same surgical procedure in the single-study group and Asian patients with BMI lower than that of Western patients may have contributed to the low conversion rate in the present study.

In terms of the morbidity rate, the present study showed that, under MILS, postoperative complications developed in 12.2% of patients, which is in line with the observations of recent reports (5, 7, 15, 24, 30).

In the present study, the MILS group had an anastomotic leakage rate of 5%. It is difficult to compare this to other studies due to the differences in inclusion and grading criteria; however, the 5% anastomotic leakage rate for low rectal cancer seems satisfactory.

The limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, there may have been a selection bias when considering patients who underwent MILS and OS. Propensity score matching was performed to eliminate selection bias as far as possible and to balance the cohort. However, due to the reasons mentioned previously, sex and the preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level remained significantly different between the two groups. The number of patients who underwent lateral lymph node dissection tended to be higher in the MILS group than in the OS group (23.7% vs. 14.5%, p=0.083), which may have contributed to the better local control rate for the MILS group. Secondly, the follow-up period was insufficient for some patients to determine the 2-year local control rate.

In conclusion, this study is the first to demonstrate the potential benefits of clear, magnified visualization in MILS in terms of local control in patients with low rectal cancer treated by the same surgical technique. Further investigation is warranted to confirm the merits of MILS.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    All Authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by Masakatsu Numata, Hiroshi Tamagawa, Keisuke Kazama, Yosuke Atsumi, Kenta Iguchi, Sho Sawazaki, Toru Aoyama, Sumito Sato, Nobuhiro Sugano, Teni Godai, Akio Higuchi, Hiroyuki Saeki, Takanobu Yamada, Takashi Oshima, Manabu Shiozawa, Norio Yukawa, and Yasushi Rino. The statistical analysis was performed by Yusuke Saigusa. The first draft of the article was written by Masakatsu Numata, and all Authors commented on previous versions of the article. All Authors read and approved the final article.

  • Conflicts of Ιnterest

    The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this study.

  • Received March 10, 2021.
  • Revision received April 2, 2021.
  • Accepted April 8, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Marinello FG,
    2. Baguena G,
    3. Lucas E,
    4. Frasson M,
    5. Hervás D,
    6. Flor-Lorente B,
    7. Esclapez P,
    8. Espí A and
    9. García-Granero E
    : Anastomotic leakage after colon cancer resection: does the individual surgeon matter? Colorectal Dis 18(6): 562-569, 2016. PMID: 26558741. DOI: 10.1111/codi.13212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Kinugasa Y,
    2. Murakami G,
    3. Uchimoto K,
    4. Takenaka A,
    5. Yajima T and
    6. Sugihara K
    : Operating behind Denonvilliers’ fascia for reliable preservation of urogenital autonomic nerves in total mesorectal excision: a histologic study using cadaveric specimens, including a surgical experiment using fresh cadaveric models. Dis Colon Rectum 49(7): 1024-1032, 2006. PMID: 16732487. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0557-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Quirke P,
    2. Steele R,
    3. Monson J,
    4. Grieve R,
    5. Khanna S,
    6. Couture J,
    7. O’Callaghan C,
    8. Myint AS,
    9. Bessell E,
    10. Thompson LC,
    11. Parmar M,
    12. Stephens RJ,
    13. Sebag-Montefiore D, MRC CR07/NCIC-CTG CO16 Trial Investigators. and NCRI Colorectal Cancer Study Group
    : Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373(9666): 821-828, 2009. PMID: 19269520. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60485-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Sun Z,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Adam MA,
    4. Nussbaum DP,
    5. Speicher PJ,
    6. Mantyh CR and
    7. Migaly J
    : Minimally invasive versus open low anterior resection: Equivalent survival in a national analysis of 14,033 patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg 263(6): 1152-1158, 2016. PMID: 26501702. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Stevenson AR,
    2. Solomon MJ,
    3. Lumley JW,
    4. Hewett P,
    5. Clouston AD,
    6. Gebski VJ,
    7. Davies L,
    8. Wilson K,
    9. Hague W,
    10. Simes J and ALaCaRT Investigators
    : Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: The ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13): 1356-1363, 2015. PMID: 26441180. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.12009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Stevenson ARL,
    2. Solomon MJ,
    3. Brown CSB,
    4. Lumley JW,
    5. Hewett P,
    6. Clouston AD,
    7. Gebski VJ,
    8. Wilson K,
    9. Hague W,
    10. Simes J and Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) ALaCaRT investigators
    : Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: The australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 269(4): 596-602, 2019. PMID: 30247332. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Fleshman J,
    2. Branda M,
    3. Sargent DJ,
    4. Boller AM,
    5. George V,
    6. Abbas M,
    7. Peters WR Jr.,
    8. Maun D,
    9. Chang G,
    10. Herline A,
    11. Fichera A,
    12. Mutch M,
    13. Wexner S,
    14. Whiteford M,
    15. Marks J,
    16. Birnbaum E,
    17. Margolin D,
    18. Larson D,
    19. Marcello P,
    20. Posner M,
    21. Read T,
    22. Monson J,
    23. Wren SM,
    24. Pisters PW and
    25. Nelson H
    : Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage ii or iii rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13): 1346-1355, 2015. PMID: 26441179. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.10529
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Fleshman J,
    2. Branda ME,
    3. Sargent DJ,
    4. Boller AM,
    5. George VV,
    6. Abbas MA,
    7. Peters WR Jr.,
    8. Maun DC,
    9. Chang GJ,
    10. Herline A,
    11. Fichera A,
    12. Mutch MG,
    13. Wexner SD,
    14. Whiteford MH,
    15. Marks J,
    16. Birnbaum E,
    17. Margolin DA,
    18. Larson DW,
    19. Marcello PW,
    20. Posner MC,
    21. Read TE,
    22. Monson JRT,
    23. Wren SM,
    24. Pisters PWT and
    25. Nelson H
    : Disease-free Survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage ii to iii rectal cancer: Follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4): 589-595, 2019. PMID: 30080730. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Ichikawa N,
    2. Homma S,
    3. Yoshida T,
    4. Iijima H,
    5. Kawamata F,
    6. Sibasaki S,
    7. Kawamura H,
    8. Minagawa N,
    9. Kamiizumi Y,
    10. Fukasaku Y and
    11. Taketomi A
    : Proficiency level of novice technically qualified surgeons in laparoscopic rectal resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 30(1): 49-54, 2020. PMID: 31764862. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Ogiso S,
    2. Yamaguchi T,
    3. Hata H,
    4. Kuroyanagi H and
    5. Sakai Y
    : Introduction of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer early during residency: a single institutional study on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(11): 2822-2829, 2010. PMID: 20422431. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1057-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Yamaguchi T,
    2. Kinugasa Y,
    3. Shiomi A,
    4. Kagawa H,
    5. Yamakawa Y,
    6. Furuatni A,
    7. Manabe S,
    8. Yamaoka Y and
    9. Hino H
    : Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(12): 1755-1762, 2018. PMID: 30191369. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3153-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yamaguchi T,
    2. Kinugasa Y,
    3. Shiomi A,
    4. Kagawa H,
    5. Yamakawa Y,
    6. Furutani A,
    7. Manabe S,
    8. Yamaoka Y and
    9. Hino H
    : Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 32(11): 4498-4505, 2018. PMID: 29721748. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6197-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Keskin M,
    2. Akici M,
    3. Ağcaoğlu O,
    4. Yeğen G,
    5. Sağlam E,
    6. Buğra D,
    7. Bulut MT and
    8. Balik E
    : Open versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center results of 587 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(3): e62-e68, 2016. PMID: 27258918. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Amin MB,
    2. Edge S,
    3. Greene F,
    4. Byrd DR,
    5. Brookland RK,
    6. Washington MK,
    7. Gershenwald JE,
    8. Compton CC,
    9. Hess KR,
    10. Sullivan DC,
    11. Jessup JM,
    12. Brierley JD,
    13. Gaspar LE,
    14. Schilsky RL,
    15. Balch CM,
    16. Winchester DP,
    17. Asare EA,
    18. Madera M,
    19. Gress DM and
    20. Meyer LR
    : AJCC cancer staging manual, Eighth Edition. Springer, 2017.
  14. ↵
    1. Hida K,
    2. Okamura R,
    3. Sakai Y,
    4. Konishi T,
    5. Akagi T,
    6. Yamaguchi T,
    7. Akiyoshi T,
    8. Fukuda M,
    9. Yamamoto S,
    10. Yamamoto M,
    11. Nishigori T,
    12. Kawada K,
    13. Hasegawa S,
    14. Morita S,
    15. Watanabe M and Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery
    : Open versus laparoscopic surgery for advanced low rectal cancer: a large, multicenter, propensity score matched cohort study in Japan. Ann Surg 268(2): 318-324, 2018. PMID: 28628565. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002329
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mori T,
    2. Kimura T and
    3. Kitajima M
    : Skill accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterologic surgeons in Japan. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19(1): 18-23, 2010. PMID: 20095893. DOI: 10.3109/13645700903492969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Numata M,
    2. Sawazaki S,
    3. Kazama K,
    4. Aoyama T,
    5. Tamagawa H,
    6. Sato T,
    7. Mushiake H,
    8. Yukawa N,
    9. Shiozawa M,
    10. Masuda M and
    11. Rino Y
    : A seven-step dissection technique for robotic total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 23(9): 913-918, 2019. PMID: 31522291. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-019-02081-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hashiguchi Y,
    2. Muro K,
    3. Saito Y,
    4. Ito Y,
    5. Ajioka Y,
    6. Hamaguchi T,
    7. Hasegawa K,
    8. Hotta K,
    9. Ishida H,
    10. Ishiguro M,
    11. Ishihara S,
    12. Kanemitsu Y,
    13. Kinugasa Y,
    14. Murofushi K,
    15. Nakajima TE,
    16. Oka S,
    17. Tanaka T,
    18. Taniguchi H,
    19. Tsuji A,
    20. Uehara K,
    21. Ueno H,
    22. Yamanaka T,
    23. Yamazaki K,
    24. Yoshida M,
    25. Yoshino T,
    26. Itabashi M,
    27. Sakamaki K,
    28. Sano K,
    29. Shimada Y,
    30. Tanaka S,
    31. Uetake H,
    32. Yamaguchi S,
    33. Yamaguchi N,
    34. Kobayashi H,
    35. Matsuda K,
    36. Kotake K,
    37. Sugihara K and Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum
    : Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 25(1): 1-42, 2020. PMID: 31203527. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-019-01485-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Dindo D,
    2. Demartines N and
    3. Clavien PA
    : Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2): 205-213, 2004. PMID: 15273542. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48(3): 452-458, 2013. PMID: 23208313. DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Bonjer HJ,
    2. Deijen CL,
    3. Abis GA,
    4. Cuesta MA,
    5. van der Pas MH,
    6. de Lange-de Klerk ES,
    7. Lacy AM,
    8. Bemelman WA,
    9. Andersson J,
    10. Angenete E,
    11. Rosenberg J,
    12. Fuerst A,
    13. Haglind E and COLOR II Study Group
    : A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14): 1324-1332, 2015. PMID: 25830422. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Akiyoshi T
    : Technical feasibility of laparoscopic extended surgery beyond total mesorectal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 22(2): 718-726, 2016. PMID: 26811619. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i2.718
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Diana M and
    2. Marescaux J
    : Robotic surgery. Br J Surg 102(2): e15-e28, 2015. PMID: 25627128. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9711
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. van der Pas MH,
    2. Haglind E,
    3. Cuesta MA,
    4. Fürst A,
    5. Lacy AM,
    6. Hop WC,
    7. Bonjer HJ and 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 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3): 210-218, 2013. PMID: 23395398. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Kang SB,
    2. Park JW,
    3. Jeong SY,
    4. Nam BH,
    5. Choi HS,
    6. Kim DW,
    7. Lim SB,
    8. Lee TG,
    9. Kim DY,
    10. Kim JS,
    11. Chang HJ,
    12. Lee HS,
    13. Kim SY,
    14. Jung KH,
    15. Hong YS,
    16. Kim JH,
    17. Sohn DK,
    18. Kim DH and
    19. Oh JH
    : Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11(7): 637-645, 2010. PMID: 20610322. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70131-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Jeong SY,
    2. Park JW,
    3. Nam BH,
    4. Kim S,
    5. Kang SB,
    6. Lim SB,
    7. Choi HS,
    8. Kim DW,
    9. Chang HJ,
    10. Kim DY,
    11. Jung KH,
    12. Kim TY,
    13. Kang GH,
    14. Chie EK,
    15. Kim SY,
    16. Sohn DK,
    17. Kim DH,
    18. Kim JS,
    19. Lee HS,
    20. Kim JH and
    21. Oh JH
    : Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15(7): 767-774, 2014. PMID: 24837215. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Cima RR,
    2. Hassan I,
    3. Poola VP,
    4. Larson DW,
    5. Dozois EJ,
    6. Larson DR,
    7. O’Byrne MM and
    8. Huebner M
    : Failure of institutionally derived predictive models of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery to predict conversion outcomes in an independent data set of 998 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Ann Surg 251(4): 652-658, 2010. PMID: 20195150. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d355f7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. van der Pas MHGM,
    2. Deijen CL,
    3. Abis GSA,
    4. de Lange-de Klerk ESM,
    5. Haglind E,
    6. Fürst A,
    7. Lacy AM,
    8. Cuesta MA,
    9. Bonjer HJ and COLOR II study group
    : Conversions in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31(5): 2263-2270, 2017. PMID: 27766413. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5228-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Crippa J,
    2. Grass F,
    3. Achilli P,
    4. Mathis KL,
    5. Kelley SR,
    6. Merchea A,
    7. Colibaseanu DT and
    8. Larson DW
    : Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 107(5): 560-566, 2020. PMID: 31976558. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11435
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Ghezzi TL,
    2. Luca F,
    3. Valvo M,
    4. Corleta OC,
    5. Zuccaro M,
    6. Cenciarelli S and
    7. Biffi R
    : Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(9): 1072-1079, 2014. PMID: 24646748. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.02.235
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (5)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 5
May 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Potential Benefits of Minimally Invasive Laparoscopy in Reducing Local Recurrence After Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Potential Benefits of Minimally Invasive Laparoscopy in Reducing Local Recurrence After Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer
MASAKATSU NUMATA, HIROSHI TAMAGAWA, KEISUKE KAZAMA, YOSUKE ATSUMI, KENTA IGUCHI, SHO SAWAZAKI, TORU AOYAMA, SUMITO SATO, NOBUHIRO SUGANO, TENI GODAI, AKIO HIGUCHI, YUSUKE SAIGUSA, HIROYUKI SAEKI, TAKANOBU YAMADA, TAKASHI OSHIMA, MANABU SHIOZAWA, NORIO YUKAWA, YASUSHI RINO
Anticancer Research May 2021, 41 (5) 2617-2623; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15042

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Potential Benefits of Minimally Invasive Laparoscopy in Reducing Local Recurrence After Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer
MASAKATSU NUMATA, HIROSHI TAMAGAWA, KEISUKE KAZAMA, YOSUKE ATSUMI, KENTA IGUCHI, SHO SAWAZAKI, TORU AOYAMA, SUMITO SATO, NOBUHIRO SUGANO, TENI GODAI, AKIO HIGUCHI, YUSUKE SAIGUSA, HIROYUKI SAEKI, TAKANOBU YAMADA, TAKASHI OSHIMA, MANABU SHIOZAWA, NORIO YUKAWA, YASUSHI RINO
Anticancer Research May 2021, 41 (5) 2617-2623; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15042
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rectal cancer
  • minimally invasive surgery
  • Robotic surgery
  • laparoscopic surgery
  • local recurrence
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire