Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Silverchair Information Systems full text link Silverchair Information Systems
Full text links

Actions

Share

Review
.2017 Apr 19;152(4):e165665.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5665. Epub 2017 Apr 19.

Pathologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Pathologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aleix Martínez-Pérez et al. JAMA Surg..

Abstract

Importance: Rectal resection with mesorectal excision is the mainstay treatment for rectal cancer.

Objective: To review and analyze the evidence concerning the pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LRR) vs open (ORR) rectal resection for rectal cancer.

Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus databases, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR.

Study selection: Only RCTs published in English from January 1, 1995, to June 30, 2016, that compared LRR with ORR for histologically proven rectal cancer in adult patients and reported pathologic outcomes (eg, positive circumferential resection margin, and complete mesorectal excision) were eligible for inclusion. Of 369 records screened, 14 RCTs were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analyses.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and quality assessment. Random-effects models were used to summarize the risk ratio (RR) and mean differences.

Main outcomes and measures: The rate of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as 1 mm or less from the closest tumor to the cut edge of the tissue, and the quality of mesorectal excision (complete, nearly complete, or incomplete).

Results: The meta-analysis included 14 unique RCTs with 4034 unique patients. Of 2989 patients undergoing rectal resection, a positive CRM was found in 135 (7.9%) of 1697 patients undergoing LRR and 79 (6.1%) of 1292 patients undergoing ORR (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89-1.53; P = .26; I2 = 0%) in 9 studies. A noncomplete (nearly complete and incomplete) mesorectal excision was reported in 179 (13.2%) of 1354 patients undergoing LRR and 104 (10.4%) of 998 patients undergoing ORR (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64; P = .02; I2 = 0%) in 5 studies. The distal resection margin involvement (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.34-3.67; P = .86), the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.77 to 0.86; P = .91), the mean distance to the distal margin (mean difference, 0.01 cm; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.15 cm; P = .87), and the mean distance to radial margins (mean difference, -0.67 mm; 95% CI, -2.16 to 0.83 mm; P = .38) were not significantly different between LRR and ORR. The risk for bias was assessed as low in 10 studies, high in 3, and unknown in 1. The overall quality of the evidence emerging from the literature was rated as high.

Conclusions and relevance: Based on the available evidence, the risk for achieving a noncomplete mesorectal excision is significantly higher in patients undergoing LRR compared with ORR. These findings question the oncologic safety of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, long-term results of the ongoing RCTs are awaited to assess whether these pathologic results have an effect on disease-free and overall patient survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Silverchair Information Systems full text link Silverchair Information Systems
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp