Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Robotic Lobectomy for Early-stage Non–Small-cell Lung Cancer Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic and Open Thoracotomy Approach

BackgroundAlthough robotic-assisted lobectomy has been increasingly used for resection of non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the long-term oncologic outcomes compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and the open thoracotomy approach have remained ill-defined.Patients and MethodsSociety of Thoracic Surgeons outcomes data and surveillance records of patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC who had undergone lobectomy by robotic-assisted, VATS, or the open approach at a single center from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Propensity score adjustment by inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Recurrence and survival were analyzed and compared by the operative approach.ResultsThe inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted cohort included 514 patients with NSCLC who had undergone robotic-assisted (n = 245), VATS (n = 118), and open (n = 151) lobectomy, with similar patient and disease characteristics. The minimally invasive procedures were associated with a shorter median hospital length of stay (robotic, 5.2 days; VATS, 4.9 days; open, 7.3 days; P < .001) and 0-adjusted 30-day mortality rate. With a median follow-up period of 45 months, the incidence for locoregional recurrence (robotic, 7%; VATS, 6%; open, 8%; P = .9) and distant failure (robotic, 14%; VATS, 18%; open, 17%; P = .9) was similar. The 5-year overall survival for robotic-assisted, VATS, and open lobectomy was 63%, 55%, and 65%, respectively (P = .56). No difference was found in stage-specific survival for stage I, II, and IIIa. On multivariate analysis, the robotic approach was associated with no differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival compared with VATS and open lobectomy.ConclusionRobotic lobectomy was associated with durable freedom of recurrence and long-term survival equivalent to those achieved with VATS and the traditional open thoracotomy approach.     

Single-docking robotic-assisted artery-guided segmental splenic flexure colectomy for splenic flexure cancer—a propensity score-matching analysis

BackgroundSplenic flexure cancer (SFC) is a rare condition in colorectal cancer (CRC). The appropriate surgical treatment for SFC remains controversial. In recent years, we have used artery-guided segmental splenic flexure colectomy (ASFC) to treat SFC in which robotic access is gradually applied. The study sought to assess the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted ASFC compared to laparoscopic-assisted ASFC for SFC by undertaking a propensity score-matching analysis.MethodsSeventy patients underwent a robotic-assisted ASFC (n=19) or laparoscopic-assisted ASFC (n=51) to treat SFC from Dec 2015 to Dec 2019. Their data were prospectively collected. The patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to sex, age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (≤2 or >2), previous abdominal surgeries, and pathologic stage.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found between the robotic- and laparoscopic-assisted ASFC groups in relation to operation time, estimated blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to liquid diet, postoperative complications, tumor size, distal resection margins, histology, lymph node harvest, metastatic lymph nodes, and neuro-vascular invasion. Additionally, no case was converted to a laparotomy. There were no cases readmission or mortality within 30 days of surgery. The distal resection margins were longer in the robotic-assisted ASFC group than the laparoscopic-assisted ASFC group. The robotic-assisted ASFC group had significantly higher operation expenses than the laparoscopic-assisted ASFC group. However, there was no significant difference in the surgical material expenses between the two groups. There were 2 cases of complications in each group; both cases were classified as grade I or II under Dindo’s classification of surgical complications.ConclusionsWith the exception of operation expenses, robotic-assisted ASFC rivals laparoscopic-assisted ASFC in many respects. ASFC meets the recommended oncological criteria in terms of resection margins and lymph node harvest. We await the results for the long-term oncologic outcomes.     

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) through a meta-analysis of studies using propensity score-matched cohorts.MethodsThe literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 31, 2022. Meta-analysis of surgical (major morbidity, the length of hospital stay, 90-day postoperative mortality), oncological (R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate) and survival outcomes (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival) was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR), mean difference (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsSix case-matched studies with 1054 patients were included (LH 518; OH 536). Major morbidity was significantly lower (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37–0.88, P = 0.01) and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD = −2.44, 95% CI = −4.19 to −0.69, P = 0.006) in the LH group than in the OH group, but there was no significant difference in 90-day postoperative mortality between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival or disease-free survival between the LH and OH groups.ConclusionsLH has better surgical outcomes and comparable oncological outcomes and survival outcomes than does OH on ICC. Therefore, laparoscopy is at least not inferior to open surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.     

A trinity technique for prevention of low rectal anastomotic leakage in the robotic era

BackgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) is a severe complication of low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer, and effectiveprevention is urgently needed. In the robotic era, this study aimed to explore the role of innovative techniques in preventing AL in rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic LAR.MethodsFrom May 2012 to May 2017, a total of 601 patients underwent robotic LAR, with 191 patients participated as control subjects (non-PST group) and 410 patients are subjected to a trinity technique (PST group). The AL rate, short-term and long-term outcomes are analyzed and compared.ResultsThe overall rate of AL was 6.8% out of 601 patients, with Grade B at 5.7% and Grade C at 1.1%, using the ISREC grading system. The PST group presented lower incidence of both overall AL (5.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.015) and major AL (0.2% vs 3.2%, P = 0.005), when compared with the non-PST group, respectively. Furthermore, the PST group had similar surgical complications (17.3% vs 20.9%, P = 0.286), while with lower re-hospitalization rate (2.7% vs 6.3%, P = 0.038) and reoperation rate (0.2% vs 4.2%, P = 0.001), compared with the non-PST group, respectively. Short-term recovery and long-term oncological outcomes were not significant in the two groups. By multivariate logistic regression models, the risk factors of AL of robotic LAR are confirmed as non-PST technique, estimated blood loss ≥100 mL, anastomosis from anal verge <5 cm, and distal resection margin from tumor <2 cm.ConclusionsThe innovative PST technique may shed light on an effective method for preventing occurrence of AL in robotic LAR.     

Oncologic Outcomes for Robotic Vs. Open Radical Cystectomy Among Locally Advanced and Node-Positive Patients: Analysis of The National Cancer Database

IntroductionDespite concerns of atypical recurrence following robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), utilization of the modality is increasing. The presumed mechanisms of peritoneal immunomodulation and pneumoperitoneum-induced tumor cell intravasation are especially relevant for higher stage, locally advanced disease, where intrinsic metastatic potential of tumor cells may be greater. This study aims to compare the oncologic outcomes and survival after RARC compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) among patients with stage pT3-4 or node-positive muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Patients and MethodsRetrospective cohort analysis of pT3-4N0-3 and pT(any)N1-3 patients who underwent RARC or ORC was performed using the National Cancer Database (2010-2016) to investigate perioperative and oncologic outcomes.Results9,062 ORC cases and 2,544 RARC cases met inclusion criteria. The robotic approach was significantly associated with superior unadjusted survival compared to open as well as lower proportions of unadjusted 30- and 90-day mortality, lower positive margin status, and shorter surgical inpatient stay (all respective P<.05). However, after adjusting for confounding covariates, multivariable analysis revealed no difference in mortality hazard or odds of any of the above secondary outcomes with the exception of shorter inpatient stay and higher lymph node yield. Patients treated with RARC were more likely to have neoadjuvant chemotherapy.ConclusionsRARC is no less safe than ORC for patients with locally advanced bladder cancer on the basis of overall, 30- and 90-day survival. Unadjusted mortality and surgical outcomes demonstrate advantages to RARC, which are attenuated after multivariate analysis. Perioperative benefits may favor the robotic approach, consistent with previous randomized control studies.     

Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for treatment of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 studies

AimsTo evaluate comparative outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) versus conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer treatment.MethodsA systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all eligible studies comparing OBCS and BCS were included. Characteristics of the tumour includes preoperative size of tumour on imaging and the weight of the specimen after resection. While positive margins rate, re-excision rate, completion mastectomy rate and loco-regional recurrence were considered as oncological outcome parameters. Post-operative complications include surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, haematoma and skin/nipple necrosis.ResultsThirty-one studies reporting a total number of 115011 patients who underwent OBCS (n = 11978) or BCS (n = 103033) were included. OBCS group showed lower risk of positive margins rate [OR 0.76, P = 0.05], re-excision rate [OR 0.72, P = 0.02], and loco-regional recurrence [OR 0.62, P = 0.03] compared to BCS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding post-operative complications.ConclusionAlthough there is a lack of level 1 evidence, the available studies clearly demonstrate superior or at least equivalent outcomes when comparing OBCS with conventional BCS. The benefits of OBCS include dealing with larger tumours, wider surgical margins and better aesthetic results for patients.     

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

ObjectiveAssessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015–July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality.ResultsOverall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) −1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD.ConclusionsThis individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.     

Surgical Procedure Selection for Stage I Lung Cancer: Complex Segmentectomy versus Wedge Resection

BackgroundAlthough sublobar resection has become widely used for lung cancer treatment, very limited data comparing outcomes following complex segmentectomy or wedge resection have been available. Questions remain regarding mortality, morbidity, surgical margin, lymph node dissection, and long-term survival outcomes. This study compares operative and postoperative outcomes of complex segmentectomy and wedge resection.Patients and MethodsA total of 216 patients with clinical stage I lung cancer who underwent complex segmentectomy (n = 110) or wedge resection (n = 106) between April 2007 and March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed, and 61 propensity score–matched pairs were analyzed. Operative and postoperative results were compared. Factors affecting survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsAlthough the complex segmentectomy group tended to have higher overall complications (26.2% vs. 16.4%; P = .27) and prolonged air leakage (11.5% vs. 6.6%; P = .53) rates than the wedge resection group, major complications (≥grade IIIa) (0% vs. 3.3%; P = .50) and 30-day mortality (0% vs. 0%; P = 1.00) rates were comparable between both groups. Complex segmentectomy provided better median surgical margin distance (15.0 vs. 10.0 mm; P = .052) and number of dissected lymph nodes (6.0 vs. 0.0 nodes; P = .0002) than wedge resection. The complex segmentectomy group tended to have better prognosis than the wedge resection group (5-year overall survival rates, 94.7% vs. 79.4% and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates, 94.0% vs. 76.5%, respectively).ConclusionsComplex segmentectomy could provide better oncological and survival outcomes with acceptable perioperative safety compared with wedge resection.     

Impact of surgical approach and resection technique on the risk of Trifecta Failure after partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal masses

IntroductionWe aimed to compare the outcomes of open vs robotic partial nephrectomy (PN), focusing on predictors of Trifecta failure in patients with highly complex renal masses.Patients and methodsWe queried the prospectively collected database from the SIB International Consortium, including 507 consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated at 16 high-volume referral centres, to select those with highly complex (PADUA score ≥10) tumors undergoing PN. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection or resection according to the SIB score. Trifecta was defined as achievement of negative surgical margins, no acute kidney injury and no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2 postoperative surgical complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of Trifecta failure.Results113 patients were included. Patients undergoing open PN (n = 47, 41.6%) and robotic PN (n = 66, 58.4%) were comparable in baseline characteristics. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection and resection in 46.9%, 34.0% and 19.1% of open PN, and in 50.0%, 40.9% and 9.1% of robotic PN (p = 0.28). Trifecta was achieved in significantly more patients after robotic PN (69.7% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, surgical approach (open vs robotic, OR: 2.62; 95%CI: 1.11–6.15, p = 0.027) and tumor complexity (OR for each additional unit of the PADUA score: 2.27; 95%CI: 1.27–4.06, p = 0.006) were significant predictors of Trifecta failure, while RT was not. The study is limited by lack of randomization; as such, selection bias and confounding cannot be entirely ruled out.ConclusionsTumor complexity and surgical approach were independent predictors of Trifecta failure after PN for highly complex renal masses.     

Robot-assisted versus open radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: A retrospective cohort study across ten years

PurposeRadical nephroureterectomy is the gold standard of treatment for high-risk non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. However, the optimal surgical approach remains a controversial debate. This study compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes of open and robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomies.Methods131 consecutive radical nephroureterectomies (66 robot-assisted nephroureterectomies vs. 65 open nephroureterectomies) for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a single tertiary referral center were included from 2009 to 2019. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between both surgical approaches, including logistic regression analysis, propensity score matching, Kaplan Meier analyses, and Cox regression models.ResultsOverall, robot-assisted surgery had less blood loss (150 ml vs. 250, p = 0.004) and less positive surgical margins (1.5% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.004) at a comparable operating time (robotic 188min vs. 178). Any grade complications were more frequent after open surgery (40.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.011), and the length of stay was shorter after robotic nephroureterectomy (9 days vs. 12, p < 0.001). These differences remained significant in the propensity score matched analysis, except for the complication rates, which were still lower for the robotic approach, but no longer significant. At a median follow-up of 30.9 months (range 1.4–129.5), neither the progression-free survival (PFS, 2-year: robotic 66.7% vs. open 55.3%), nor the overall survival differed significantly (OS, 2-year: robotic 76.2% vs. open 68.4%). In the Cox regression, the surgical approach did not impact the PFS or OS. Lymph node metastases (HR 3.32, p = 0.008) had the strongest impact on the PFS besides patient age (HR 1.51 per 10 years, p = 0.025) and prior cystectomy (HR 2.42, p = 0.026) in the multivariate analysis.ConclusionsRobot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy had significant perioperative advantages at comparable oncological outcomes compared to open surgery for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a high volume center, experienced in robotic surgery.     

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y reconstruction using conventional linear stapler in robotic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BackgroundRobotic stapling devices have been designed to create staple formation equivalent to conventional laparoscopic stapling. In gastric cancer surgery, however, any advantages the robotic stapler has in maneuverability compared to standard laparoscopic stapling devices remain unclear [1]. We applied robotic-assisted laparoscopic stapling techniques during reconstruction after robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancers (GCs) as “fusion surgery”. Here, we outline our stapling technique and retrospectively evaluate surgical outcomes of laparoscopic staplers in patients undergoing RTG for GCs.MethodsThis is a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We performed robotic gastrectomy (RG) for GCs on 70 patients at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital (WMUH) between May 1, 2017 and July 31, 2019. RG was adopted for all patients with GCs in whom curative gastrectomy was applicable. All operations were performed by a single surgeon (T.O.). Of our 70 consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for GCs, 22 underwent RTG with Roux-en-Y reconstruction using laparoscopic staplers. All RTG procedures were performed using the da Vinci Surgical System. The duodenum and abdominal esophagus were transected using a 45 mm long laparoscopic linear stapler. After total gastrectomy, we performed antecolic Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Jejunojejunostomy was completed under direct vision following retrieval of the stomach. In robotic view, an intracorporeal side-to-side esophagojejunostomy was constructed using a laparoscopic linear stapler [2]. The 22 patients were followed-up for at least 3 months. Follow-up data were obtained from the hospital database, including the patient background, tumor characteristics, and surgical data. Postoperative complications higher than Clavien–Dindo grade 2 were regarded as clinically significant postoperative complications [3].ResultsThe duration of operation and reconstruction were 385 min and 81 min, respectively. The median intraoperative bleeding was 45 ml. There were no conversions to conventional laparoscopy or open surgery in all patients. Of these 22 patients, one patient had postoperative pneumonia (Grade 2) and another developed postoperative intraabdominal bleeding (Grade 3a) [3]. No anastomosis-related complications developed in all patients.ConclusionsRegarding short-term surgical outcomes, robotic-assisted laparoscopic stapling techniques for reconstruction after RTG, “fusion surgery” are both feasible and safe for GCs. This study had several limitations. It was a retrospective study. Moreover, it was conducted at a single institution and the sample size was small (n = 22).     

A Brief Report on Survival After Robotic Lobectomy for Early-Stage Lung Cancer

IntroductionRobotic-assisted surgery has become the first choice for several conditions since its introduction in clinical practice in 2000. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently raised a warning against the use of robotic surgical approaches for the cure and prevention of cancer following the publication of two studies focused on endometrial cancer. We conducted an internal audit to retrospectively analyze our experience to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery.MethodsWe selected a 5-year period to guarantee at least 2 years of follow-up (2011–2016) and identified 1139 patients who underwent lobectomy for NSCLC in our division. The primary data set analyzed included 544 early-stage clinical N0 patients (348 open and 196 robotic surgeries). We compared 131 patients of each group individually matched, with demographic and clinical characteristics almost identical.ResultsNo difference was observed between the cohorts, either in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 1.09; p = 0.55) or overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.86; p = 0.36). The 5-year recurrence of disease risk and overall survival were 24.9% and 83.2%, respectively, in the open group and 24.6% and 86.1%, respectively, in the robotic group.ConclusionsThese data underline that robotic-assisted lobectomy for early NSCLC is a safe and feasible technique with adequate long-term and progression-free survival compared to open surgery.     

Association of Surgical Approach With Treatment Burden,Oncological Effectiveness,and Perioperative Morbidity in Adrenocortical Carcinoma

MicroabstractIn the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients treated with minimally invasive adrenalectomy (MIA) for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) had similar oncological outcomes and cumulative treatment burden with less morbidity compared with open adrenalectomy (OA). Although OA remains the standard of care for adrenal lesions concerninge for malignancy, MIA in appropriately selected patients may offer equivalent oncological outcomes.Introduction/BackgroundWe investigated the cumulative treatment burden, oncological effectiveness, and perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing MIA compared with (OA) for patients with ACC.Patients and MethodsWe reviewed the NCDB for patients undergoing surgical resection (MIA vs. OA) for ACC from 2010 to 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic regression, negative binomial, and Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess for an association of surgical approach with cumulative treatment burden (any adjuvant therapy, radiation therapy [RT], and systemic therapy), oncological effectiveness (positive surgical margins [PSM], lymph node yield [LNY], and overall survival [OS]), and perioperative morbidity (length of stay [LOS] and readmission) as appropriate.ResultsWe identified 776 patients that underwent adrenalectomy for ACC, of which 307 underwent MIA. We noted patients with larger tumors (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86, P < .001) were less likely to have MIA prior to IPTW. We did not appreciate a significant association of MIA with cumulative treatment burden or the use of any adjuvant therapy (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21, P = .375), adjuvant RT (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59-1.50, P = .801), or adjuvant systemic therapy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.21, P = .352). Patients undergoing MIA had similar oncological effectiveness of surgery and OS when compared with patients which underwent OA. Patients that underwent MIA had a significantly shorter LOS (IRR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, P = .001) and lower odds of readmission (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.91, P = .026).ConclusionsAlthough the standard of care for adrenal lesions suspicious for ACC remains OA, in appropriately selected patients, MIA may offer similar oncological effectiveness and cumulative treatment burden, with less morbidity, than OA.     

Minimally invasive surgical staging for early stage ovarian cancer: A long-term follow up

IntroductionThe standard treatment for epithelial early stage ovarian cancer (eEOC) includes laparotomic surgical staging, according to ESGO-ESMO guidelines. In the last decade, many investigators have assessed the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) staging in properly selected patients. However, survival data related to different surgical approaches (open versus MIS) are extremely limited. The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term oncological outcomes in eEOC patients treated with MIS.Materials and methodsThis is a multicenter observational retrospective study conducted in two tertiary oncological centers. We selected all consecutive women who underwent a laparoscopic or robotic staging for eEOC.ResultsFrom January 2008 to December 2016, 254 eEOC patients underwent a MIS staging (188 laparoscopic staging and 66 robotic staging). Overall, 18.1% of patients were upstaged due to pathological findings. A total of 203 (79.9%) patients received platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy.After a median follow-up of 61 months (range 13–118), 39 (15.3%) patients experienced recurrence. The 5-years progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates were 84.0% and 93.8%, respectively.In the univariate analysis, favorable variables influencing PFS were young age (≤45 years), non-serous histotype, tumor grade 1-2, and FIGO stage IA/IB. In the multivariate analysis, only grade 3 was shown to keep its negative independent prognostic value (HR = 3.47; p = 0.004), whereas FIGO stage ≥ IC showed a trend toward significance (HR = 1.75; p = 0.099).ConclusionThis retrospective study represents the longest follow-up of eEOC patients managed by MIS. The MIS is a valuable therapeutic option in appropriately selected patients, although a randomized controlled trial is needed.     

Long-term outcomes following salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: A 15-year follow-up study

BackgroundLocally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is a complex problem requiring multidisciplinary consultation and specialized surgical care. Given the paucity of published longer-term survival data, skepticism persists regarding the benefit of major extirpative surgery. We investigated ultra-long-term (~15 years) outcomes following radical resection of LRRC and sought relevant clinicopathologic prognostic variables.MethodsA cohort of 52 consecutive patients who underwent resection of LRRC at our institution between 1997 and 2005 were followed with serial exams and imaging up to the point of death, or 30/06/2019.ResultsMedian follow-up time was 16.5 years (9.9–18.3) for patients who were alive at last follow-up; only one patient was lost to follow-up, at 9.9 years. For the entire cohort of 52 patients, disease-specific survival (DSS) at 5, 10, and 15 years following salvage surgery was 41%, 33%, and 31%, respectively. All patients who had distant metastatic disease at the time of LRRC resection (n = 6) subsequently died of cancer, at a median of 21 months (4−46). In those without distant metastases at time of salvage surgery (n = 46), DSS at 5, 10, and 15 years was 47%, 38%, and 35%, respectively, median 60 months. Negative resection margin (R0) was independently predictive of superior outcomes. In patients with M0 disease who had R0 resection (n = 37), DSS at 5, 10 and 15 years was 58%, 47%, and 44%, respectively, median 73 months. No patient developed re-recurrence after 5.5 years.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates exceptionally durable long-term cancer-free survival following salvage surgery for LRRC, indicating that cure is possible.     

Abdominal lymph node recurrence from colorectal cancer: Resection should be considered as a curative treatment in patients with controlled disease

BackgroundLymph node recurrences (LNR) from colorectal cancer (CRC) still represent a therapeutic challenge, as standardized recommendations have yet to be established. The aim of this study was to analyze short- and long-term oncological outcomes following resection of LNR from CRC.MethodsAll patients with previously resected CRC who underwent histopathologically confirmed LNR resection in 3 tertiary referral centers between 2010 and 2017 were reviewed. Short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed, mainly recurrence-free and overall survival. Further recurrences following LNR resection were also analyzed.ResultsOverall, 18 patients were included. Primary CRC was left-sided in 16 (89%) patients, staged T3-4 in 15 (83%), N+ in 14 (78%) and presented with synchronous metastases in 8 (43%). Median time interval between primary CRC and LNR resections was 31 months. Performed lymphadenectomies were aortocaval (n = 10), pelvic (n = 7), in hepatic pedicle (n = 3) and mesenteric (n = 1). Four patients had associated liver metastases resection. Three (17%) presented with postoperative complications, of which one Clavien-Dindo 3. Fourteen (78%) patients presented with further recurrences after a mean delay of 9 months, with 36% of patients presenting with early (<6 months) recurrence. Five (36%) patients could undergo secondary recurrence resection and 3 (21%) patients radiotherapy. Median overall survival following LNR resection reached 44 months.ConclusionsCurrent results suggest that LNR resection is feasible and associated with improved survival, in selected patients. Longer time interval between primary CRC resection and LNR occurrence appeared to be a favorable prognostic factor whereas multisite recurrence appeared to be associated with impaired long-term survival.     

A Multicenter Study of Complex Segmentectomy Versus Wedge Resection in Clinical Stage 0-IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundAlthough sublobar resection is widely used for lung cancer treatment, very limited data are available comparing outcomes after complex segmentectomy and wedge resection. We compared the oncological outcomes of complex segmentectomy and wedge resection for clinical stage 0-IA lung cancer via a large cohort, multicenter database using propensity score-matched analysis.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 506 clinical stage 0-IA, solid component size ≤ 2.0 cm lung cancer patients who underwent surgical resection at three institutions between 2010 and 2018. Surgical results after complex segmentectomy (n = 222) and “location-adjusted” wedge resection (n = 284) were analyzed for all patients and their propensity score-matched pairs.ResultsIn all cohort, the complex segmentectomy group tended to have a better prognosis than the wedge resection group (5 year cancer-specific survival rate, 97.4% vs. 93.7%; P = .065 and 5 year recurrence-free interval [RFI] rates, 96.9% vs. 86.1%; P = .0005). This trend was also identified in subanalyses for pure solid tumors. In 179 propensity score-matched pairs, the prognosis of patients with complex segmentectomy tended to be better than that of patients with wedge resection (5 year cancer-specific survival rates, 96.8% vs. 92.9%; 5 year RFI rates, 96.3% vs. 87.5%). Multivariable Cox regression analysis for RFI revealed that complex segmentectomy significantly reduced lung cancer recurrence compared with wedge resection (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.73; P = .0061).ConclusionsComplex segmentectomy can provide better oncological outcomes compared with wedge resection.     

The increasing role of abdominal metastesectomy for malignant melanoma in the era of modern therapeutics

BackgroundMetastatic spread of malignant melanoma to the abdomen presents a therapeutic challenge. Targeted and Immune-therapies dramatically improve patients’ survival, yet some patients may still benefit from surgical intervention. This study investigates the outcomes of surgical treatment of abdominal metastatic melanoma in the era of modern therapy.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of all patients who underwent surgical resection for abdominal metastatic melanoma between the years 2009–2021 (n = 80). We examined the clinical, operative, perioperative, and oncological outcomes of these patients.ResultsThe cohort included a therapeutic group (T, n = 43) and palliative group (P, n = 37). The rate of overall post-operative complications was lower in the T group (n = 3, 9.3%) compared to the P group (n = 10, 27.1%) (p = 0.04), but no difference in major complications rate (p = 0.41). The median follow-up was 13.4 months (range, 0.5–107), with an estimated 2- and 5-years survival of 66.5% and 45.3% respectively. The estimated 2- and 5-years survival of the T group was 76.61% and 69.65%, and 49.01% and 28.01% in the P group (p = 0.005). Univariate analysis identified Therapeutic resection (HR 3.2, p = 0.008), isolated lesions (HR 1.47, p = 0.033) and major complication score (HR 1.8, p=<0.001) to be correlated with survival. On multivariate analysis, Therapeutic resection (HR 2.53, p = 0.042) and major complication score (HR 1.62, p = 0.004) remained significant independent factors correlated with survival. In patients who progressed on treatment, and their progression was treated with surgical resection 46.1% where able to be maintained on the same preoperative treatment strategy.ConclusionWe have demonstrated that abdominal metastesectomy is a safe and oncologically efficacious therapy in selected patients. Especially in the era of modern therapeutics, patients with isolated disease site, limited resectable progression on therapy, or patients with symptomatic metastases should be considered for surgical resection.     

Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Comparative study of short and long-term outcomes

Background

Despite the several series in which the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery were investigated, data concerning the long-term outcomes are still scarce.

Methods

The prospectively collected records of 65 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) were compared with those of 109 consecutive patients treated with open surgery (OTME). Patient characteristics, pathological findings, local and systemic recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates were compared.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality. There were significant differences comparing groups: number of lymph nodes harvested (RTME: 20.1 vs. OTME: 14.1, P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RTME: 0 vs. OTME: 150 ml, P = 0.003), operation time (RTME: 299.0 vs. OTME: 207.5 min, P < 0.001) and length of postoperative stay (RTME: 6 vs. OTME: 9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement and distal resection margin were not statistically different between groups. There were no statistically significant differences at the 5-year follow-up: overall survival, disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival. The cumulative local recurrence rate was statistically lower in the robotic group (RTME: 3.4% vs. OTME: 16.1%, P = 0.024).

Conclusion

RTME showed a significant reduction in local recurrence rate and a higher, although not statistically significant, long-term cancer-specific survival with respect to OTME. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm or deny significantly better local control rates with robotic surgery.     

Determinants of Complete Resection of Thymoma by Minimally Invasive and Open Thymectomy: Analysis of an International Registry

IntroductionMinimally invasive thymectomy (MIT) is a surgical approach to thymectomy that has more favorable short-term outcomes for myasthenia gravis than open thymectomy (OT). The oncologic outcomes of MIT performed for thymoma have not been rigorously evaluated. We analyzed determinants of complete (R0) resection among patients undergoing MIT and OT in a large international database.MethodsThe retrospective database of the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group was queried. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, multivariate logistic regression models, and propensity matching were performed.ResultsA total of 2514 patients underwent thymectomy for thymoma between 1997 and 2012; 2053 of them (82%) underwent OT and 461 (18%) underwent MIT, with the use of MIT increasing significantly in recent years. The rate of R0 resection among patients undergoing OT was 86%, and among those undergoing MIT it was 94% (p < 0.0001). In propensity-matched MIT and OT groups (n = 266 in each group); however, the rate of R0 resection did not differ significantly (96% in both the MIT and OT groups, p = 0.7). Multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants of R0 resection. Factors independently associated with R0 resection were geographical region, later time period, less advanced Masaoka stage, total thymectomy, and the absence of radiotherapy. Surgical approach, whether minimally invasive or open, was not associated with completeness of resection.ConclusionsThe use of MIT for resection of thymoma has been increasing substantially over time, and MIT can achieve rates of R0 resection for thymoma similar to those achieved with OT.