R0 Resection Rates in Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pelvic Exenteration for Colorectal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Ernest Cheng, Juanita Chui, Mina Sarofim, Jasmine Mui, Amit Sarkar, Zachary Bunjo, Andrew Gilmore, Assad Zahid
{"title":"R0 Resection Rates in Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pelvic Exenteration for Colorectal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ernest Cheng, Juanita Chui, Mina Sarofim, Jasmine Mui, Amit Sarkar, Zachary Bunjo, Andrew Gilmore, Assad Zahid","doi":"10.1002/jso.28149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Pelvic exenteration is a curative option for select patients with locally invasive or recurrent colorectal cancer. Achieving clear margins (R0 resection) is critical for optimal oncological outcomes and quality of life. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, offers advantages in visualisation and precision, but its feasibility is debated given data limitations. This meta-analysis compares outcomes of MIS with open pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with studies comparing MIS to open approaches for pelvic exenteration in colorectal cancer included. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate, with secondary outcomes encompassing operative, postoperative, and oncological results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven retrospective studies were analysed, including a total of 564 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in R0 resection rates between MIS and open approaches (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41) with low heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 19%). MIS had similar lymph node harvest, operative time, and postoperative complications but demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of stay, and improved 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MIS achieves comparable R0 resection rates to open surgery in pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer, with advantages in recovery and survival outcomes. Current evidence is limited by retrospective studies with selection bias requiring future standardised prospective trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28149","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Pelvic exenteration is a curative option for select patients with locally invasive or recurrent colorectal cancer. Achieving clear margins (R0 resection) is critical for optimal oncological outcomes and quality of life. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, offers advantages in visualisation and precision, but its feasibility is debated given data limitations. This meta-analysis compares outcomes of MIS with open pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with studies comparing MIS to open approaches for pelvic exenteration in colorectal cancer included. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate, with secondary outcomes encompassing operative, postoperative, and oncological results.

Results: Seven retrospective studies were analysed, including a total of 564 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in R0 resection rates between MIS and open approaches (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 19%). MIS had similar lymph node harvest, operative time, and postoperative complications but demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of stay, and improved 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates.

Conclusions: MIS achieves comparable R0 resection rates to open surgery in pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer, with advantages in recovery and survival outcomes. Current evidence is limited by retrospective studies with selection bias requiring future standardised prospective trials.

微创与开放式盆腔切除术治疗结直肠恶性肿瘤的R0切除率:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:盆腔切除术是局部侵袭性或复发性结直肠癌患者的治疗选择。获得清晰的边缘(R0切除)是最佳肿瘤预后和生活质量的关键。微创手术(MIS),包括腹腔镜和机器人方法,在可视化和精度方面具有优势,但由于数据限制,其可行性存在争议。本荟萃分析比较了MIS与开放式盆腔切除术治疗结直肠癌的结果。方法:进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较MIS和开放式入路在结直肠癌盆腔切除术中的应用。主要结果是R0切除率,次要结果包括手术、术后和肿瘤结果。结果:我们分析了7项回顾性研究,共包括564例患者。meta分析显示MIS和开放入路的R0切除率无显著差异(RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41),异质性低(I2 = 19%)。MIS有相似的淋巴结收获、手术时间和术后并发症,但术中出血量显著减少,住院时间缩短,3年总生存率和无病生存率提高。结论:MIS在结直肠癌盆腔切除术中的R0切除率与开放式手术相当,在恢复和生存结果方面具有优势。目前的证据受到回顾性研究的限制,存在选择偏差,需要未来标准化的前瞻性试验。
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
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
×
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