Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Stefano Cardelli, Luca Stocchi, Amit Merchea, Dorin T Colibaseanu, Michelle F DeLeon, Nitin Mishra, Kevin J Hancock, David W Larson
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin.","authors":"Stefano Cardelli, Luca Stocchi, Amit Merchea, Dorin T Colibaseanu, Michelle F DeLeon, Nitin Mishra, Kevin J Hancock, David W Larson","doi":"10.1097/DCR.0000000000003466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy when compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes following robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) through the Mayo Data Explorer platform.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected based on the magnetic resonance imaging-based definition from Mercury I and II trials.</p><p><strong>Primary and secondary outcome measures: </strong>Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, rate of distal margin involvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs. 18.4%, p < 0.001) and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326, 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score-matching on 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery (p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% RP patients vs. 11.8% OP patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>Retrospective design.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract.</p>","PeriodicalId":11299,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000003466","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy when compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement.

Objective: Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes following robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) through the Mayo Data Explorer platform.

Patients: Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected based on the magnetic resonance imaging-based definition from Mercury I and II trials.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, rate of distal margin involvement.

Results: Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs. 18.4%, p < 0.001) and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326, 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score-matching on 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery (p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% RP patients vs. 11.8% OP patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins.

Limitation: Retrospective design.

Conclusion: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract.

机器人与开腹直肠切除术治疗高风险环切边缘阳性直肠癌的疗效比较
背景:与开腹直肠切除术相比,机器人直肠切除术治疗局部晚期直肠癌的有效性一直备受关注:与开腹直肠切除术相比,机器人直肠切除术治疗局部晚期直肠癌的效果一直令人担忧,因为这种手术有很高的周缘切除受累风险:比较机器人直肠切除术与开放式直肠切除术在该亚群中的代癌预后:设计:回顾性队列研究:三家学术医院(亚利桑那州梅奥诊所、佛罗里达州梅奥诊所和罗切斯特梅奥诊所)通过梅奥数据资源管理器平台进行研究:根据 "水星 "I和II试验中基于磁共振成像的定义,选择周缘切除边缘受累的高风险患者:病理环切边缘受累率(≤1 mm)、直肠间质分级、远端边缘受累率:在413名患者中,125人(30%)接受了开腹直肠切除术,288人(70%)接受了机器人直肠切除术。开腹直肠切除术与更高比例的cT4肿瘤(39.3% vs. 24.8%,p = 0.021)、多脏器/合并切除术(40.8% vs. 18.4%,p < 0.001)和较少使用新辅助疗法(17.1% vs. 47.1%,p = 0.001)明显相关。机器人直肠切除术与病理周缘切除受累的相关性较低(7.3% vs. 17.6%,p = 0.002),包括在调整了cT分期、新辅助治疗和多内脏切除后(OR 0.326,95% CI,0.157-0.670,p = 0.002)。对每组66名患者进行倾向评分匹配和相关的多变量分析后发现,机器人手术并未降低周缘阳性率(p = 0.86 和 p = 0.18)。中直肠分级具有可比性(6%的RP患者中直肠中膜不完整,而11.8%的OP患者中直肠中膜不完整,p = 0.327)。所有病例的远端切除边缘均为阴性:局限性:回顾性设计:对于周缘切除边缘受累风险较高的局部晚期直肠癌患者,机器人直肠切除术是一种有效的方法,在技术条件允许的情况下可作为开腹直肠切除术的替代方案。参见视频摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
572
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (DCR) is the official journal of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) dedicated to advancing the knowledge of intestinal disorders by providing a forum for communication amongst their members. The journal features timely editorials, original contributions and technical notes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信