Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux
{"title":"经肛门、机器人、开腹和腹腔镜直肠癌切除手术的组织病理学结果。随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I<sup>2</sup>:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.</p>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":" ","pages":"109481"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I<sup>2</sup>:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"109481\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Background: While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.
Materials and methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.
Results: The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I2:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I2:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I2:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I2:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.
Conclusion: When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.
期刊介绍:
JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery.
The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.