Objective: To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture-level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing "watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of "watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′s exact test for categorical variables. Results: Forty-eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3-year disease-free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty-five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over-treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%,70/77) and DWI-MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty-six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long-term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty-one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty-four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty-two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus-preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty-nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty-six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow-up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty-one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty-six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non-operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non-operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term outcome of organ preservation with local excision or "watch and wait" strategy for mid-low rectal cancer patients evaluated as clinical complete remission (cCR) or near-cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). METHODS: Clinical data of 62 mid-low rectal cancer patients evaluated as cCR/near-cCR after NCRT undergoing organ preservation surgery with local excision or receiving "watch and wait" strategy at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute from March 2011 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the approximate 1:2 pairing, 123 patients who underwent radical resection with complete pathological remission(ypCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the same period were selected for prognosis comparison. The primary endpoint of the study was 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival (NR-DFS) and tumor specific survival (CSS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier curve (Log-rank method). The secondary endpoint of the study was 3-year organ preservation and sphincter preservation. RESULTS: The retrospective study included 38 male and 24 female patients. The median age was 60 (31-79) years and the median distance from tumor to anal verge was 4(1-8) cm. The ratio of cCR and near-cCR was 79.0%(49/62) and 21.0%(13/62) respectively. Local regrowth rate was 24.2%(15/62). Of 15 with tumor regrowth, 9 patients received salvage radical rectal resection and no local recurrence was found during follow-up; 4 patients received salvage local excision among whom one patient had a local recurrence occurred patient; 2 patients refused further surgery. The overall metastasis rate was 8.1%(5/62), including resectable metastasis(4.8%,3/62) and unresectable metastasis (3.2%,2/62). The valid 3-year organ preservation rate and sphincter preservation rate were 85.5%(53/62) and 95.2%(59/62) respectively. The median follow-up was 36.2(8.6-89.0) months. The 3-year NR-DFS of patients with cCR and near-cCR was 88.6% and 83.1% respectively, which was not significantly different to that of patients with ypCR (94.7%, P=0.217). The 3-year CSS of patients with cCR and near-cCR was both 100%, which was not significantly different to that of patients with ypCR(93.4%, P=0.186). CONCLUSIONS Mid-low rectal cancer patients with cCR or near-cCR after NCRT undergoing organ preservation with local excision or receiving "watch and wait" strategy have good long-term prognosis with low rates of local tumor regrowth and distant metastasis, which is similar to those with ypCR after radical surgery. This treatment mode may be used as an option for organ preservation in mid-low rectal cancer patients with good tumor remission after NCRT.
Adult ; Aged ; Chemoradiotherapy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Neoplasm Staging ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Watchful Waiting

OBJECTIVETo examine the association of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level with the efficacy of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and postoperative metastasis and relapse in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODSBetween January 2011 and January 2014, 325 patients with local advanced rectal cancer underwent preoperative radiochemotherapy and radical operation in Department of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, Beijing University Cancer Hospital, including 194 males and 131 females. According to preoperative MRI, all the patients suffered from clinical T3-4 tumors or positive lymph nodes. Their Zubrod-ECOG-WHO score was 0-1. These patients received preoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy which consisted of 50.6 Gy in 22 fractions (IMRT GTV 50.6 Gy/CTV 41.8 Gy/22 f) with capecitabine(825 mg/m, twice per day) as radiosensitizer. According to the preoperative serum CEA level, patients were divided into high group (125 cases) and normal group (200 cases). In high group, serum CEA level decreased into normal range in 60 patients (high-normal group) after radiochemotherapy, while it was still in high level in other 65 patients (high-high group). The differences in sensitivity to radiochemotherapy and 3-year disease free survival (DFS) of these patients were both evaluated.

RESULTSIn high group and normal group, the complete response rates were 18.4% (23/125) and 17.5% (35/200) (χ=0.319, P=0.660); the percentages of tumor regression grade(TRG) 0-1 patients were 68.0%(85/125) and 67.5%(135/200)(χ=0.009, P=0.925); the T downstage rates were 63.2%(79/125) and 70.0%(140/200)(χ=1.266, P=0.274), respectively, whose differences were all not significant. The 3-year DFS rate in high group was 62.4%, which was significantly lower than 93.5% in normal group (χ=53.147, P=0.000). There were 65 patients in high-high group, accounting for 52% (65/125) of high group. Among these 65 patients, 44(67.7%) presented recurrence and metastasis within 3 years and the 3-year DFS was 32.3%, which was much lower than 95.0% of 60 patients in high-normal group(χ=182.085, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONSPreoperative serum CEA level may not be used to predict tumor response of rectal cancer patients who receive preoperative radiochemotherapy. However, the prognosis of patients with high CEA level is worse. Recurrence and metastasis are more likely to occur in patients with high CEA level after radiochemotherapy.

Adult ; Aged ; Biomarkers, Tumor ; blood ; Carcinoembryonic Antigen ; blood ; Chemoradiotherapy ; statistics & numerical data ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; statistics & numerical data ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; statistics & numerical data ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; prevention & control ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; prevention & control ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; drug therapy ; mortality ; surgery ; Survival Rate

OBJECTIVETo investigate the safety and efficacy of organ preservation surgery or "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients who are evaluated as clinical complete response(cCR) or near-cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODFrom March 2011 to June 2016, 35 patients with mid-low rectal cancers who were diagnosed as cCR or near-cCR following nCRT underwent organ preservation surgery with local excision or surveillance following "watch and wait" strategy in the Peking University Cancer Hospital. All the patients received re-evaluation and re-staging 6-12 weeks after the completion of nCRT, according to Habr-Gama and MSKCC criteria for the diagnosis of cCR or near-cCR. The near-cCR patients who received local excision and were pathologically diagnosed as T0Nx were also regarded as cCR. The end-points of this study included organ-preservation rate (OPR), sphincter-preservation rate (SPR), non-re-growth disease-free survival (NR-DFS), stoma-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival(OS). Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the survival data at 3 years.

RESULTSA total of 35 cases were analyzed including 24 males (68.6%) and 11 females (31.4%). The median age was 60 (range 37-79) years and the median distance from tumor to anal edge was 4(2-8) cm. Thirty-three patients received 50.6 Gy/22f IMRT with capecitabine and two patients received 50 Gy/25f RT with capecitabine. The cCR and near-cCR rates were 74.3%(26/35) and 25.7%(9/35) respectively. Excision biopsy was performed in 4 near-cCR cases to confirm the diagnosis of cCR. The non-re-growth DFS rate was 14.3%(5/35) and the median time of tumor re-growth was 6.7 (4.7-37.4) months. In five patients with tumor re-growth, four were salvaged by radical rectal resections and one received local excision. The distant metastasis rate was 5.7%(2/35), one patient presented resectable liver metastasis and received radical resection, another patient presented multiple bone metastases and was still alive. The median follow-up time was 43.7(6.1-71.4) months. At three years, the organ-preservation rate was 88.6%(31/35), the sphincter-preservation rate was 97.1% (34/35). No local recurrence was observed in five patients who received salvage surgery. The non-re-growth DFS was 94.0%. Three patients died of non-rectal cancer related events. The cancer-specific survival was 100%, the overall survival was 92.7% and the stoma-free survival rate was 90.0%.

CONCLUSIONSOrgan preservation surgery or "watch and wait" strategy for cCR or near-cCR patients is feasible and achieves good outcomes. This strategy can be an alternative to standard care, improve patient's quality of life and facilitate tailored treatment for mid-low rectal cancer following nCRT, however, it should be cautiously applied in near-cCR patients before local excision biopsy.

Adult ; Aged ; Anal Canal ; surgery ; Biopsy ; Chemoradiotherapy ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms ; secondary ; surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; prevention & control ; Organ Preservation ; Quality of Life ; Rectal Neoplasms ; mortality ; surgery ; therapy ; Reoperation ; Salvage Therapy ; Survival Rate ; Treatment Outcome ; Watchful Waiting ; methods

OBJECTIVETo investigate the survival and prognostic factors of stage 0 to III rectal cancer in 10 years.

METHODSClinical data and follow-up of 856 rectal cancer patients with stage 0-III underwent curative surgery from January 2000 to December 2010 were retrospective analyzed. There were 470 male and 386 female patients, with a mean age of (58 ± 12) years. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the overall survival and disease free survival. Log-rank test was used to compare the survival between groups. Cox regression was used to analyze the independent prognostic factors of rectal cancer.

RESULTSThe patients in each stage were stage 0 with 18 cases, stage I with 209 cases, stage II with 235 cases, and stage III with 394 cases. All patients received curative surgery. There were 296 patients evaluated as cT3, cT4 and any T with N+ received preoperative radiotherapy. 5.4% patients got pathological complete response (16/296), and the recurrence rate was 4.7% (14/296). After a median time of 41.7 months (range 4.1 to 144.0 months) follow-up, the 5-year overall survival rate in stage 0 to I of was 91.0%, stage II 86.2%, and stage III 60.0%, with a significant difference (P=0.000). The cumulative local recurrence rate was 4.8% (41/856), of which 70.7% (29/41) occurred within 3 years postoperatively, 97.6% (40/41) in 5 years. The cumulative distant metastasis rate was 16.4% (140/856), of which 82.9% (129/140) occurred within 3 years postoperatively, 96.4% (135/140) in 5 years. The incidence of abnormal imaging findings was significantly higher in pulmonary than liver and other sites metastases (75.0% vs. 21.7%, χ² =25.691, P=0.000). The incidence of CEA elevation was significantly higher in liver than lung and other sites metastases (56.8% vs. 37.8%, χ² =25.691, P=0.000). Multivariable analysis showed that age (P=0.015, HR=1.385, 95% CI: 1.066 to 1.801), surgical approach (P=0.029, HR=1.337, 95% CI: 1.030 to 1.733), differentiation (P=0.000, HR=1.535, 95% CI: 1.222 to 1.928), TNM stage (P=0.000, HR=1.349, 95% CI: 1.260 to 1.444) and lymphovascular invasion (P=0.001, HR=1.715, 95% CI: 1.258 to 2.342) are the independent prognostic factors for rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONSAge, surgical approach, differentiation, TNM stage and lymphovascular invasion are independent prognostic factors for rectal cancer. Preoperative evaluation and combined modality therapy can significant reduce the local recurrence and improve overall survival for rectal cancer patients.

Aged ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Neoplasm Staging ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; surgery ; therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Survival Rate

OBJECTIVETo compare the perioperative safety and efficacy between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery(HALS) and conventional open sigmoidectomy.

METHODSA total of 291 patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent surgery in our hospital from January 2010 to June 2013 were seperated into (HALS) group (n=200) and conventional open surgery (COS) group (n=91) with a non-randomized method. The perioperative safety and efficacy of two groups and perioperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTSThese two groups were comparable in operative time, lymph node harvest, and postoperative complications. However, HALS group had less intraoperative bleeding [(57.9±28.3) ml vs. (82.5±47.6) ml, P=0.000], shorter time to flatus [(3.0±1.4) d vs. (3.3±0.9) d, P=0.000], and shorter hospital stay [(7.3±4.2) d vs. (8.9±4.4) d, P=0.004]. There werer no significant differences in overall survival time and disease-free survival time between the two groups during 6 months to 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSIONSHALS results in similar outcomes of conventional open surgery for sigmoidectomy with the advantage of minimal invasiveness.

Colectomy ; Disease-Free Survival ; Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Nodes ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; Postoperative Period ; Prospective Studies ; Sigmoid Neoplasms ; Treatment Outcome

Objective To compare the perioperative safety and efficacy between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open sigmoidectomy. Methods A total of 291 patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent surgery in our hospital from January 2010 to June 2013 were seperated into (HALS) group (n=200) and conventional open surgery (COS) group (n=91) with a non-randomized method. The perioperative safety and efficacy of two groups and perioperative outcomes were compared. Results These two groups were comparable in operative time, lymph node harvest, and postoperative complications. However, HALS group had less intraoperative bleeding [(57.9±28.3) ml vs. (82.5±47.6) ml, P=0.000], shorter time to flatus[(3.0±1.4) d vs. (3.3±0.9) d, P=0.000], and shorter hospital stay[(7.3±4.2) d vs. (8.9±4.4) d, P=0.004]. There werer no significant differences in overall survival time and disease-free survival time between the two groups during 6 months to 3 years follow-up. Conclusions HALS results in similar outcomes of conventional open surgery for sigmoidectomy with the advantage of minimal invasiveness.

Objective To compare the perioperative safety and efficacy between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open sigmoidectomy. Methods A total of 291 patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent surgery in our hospital from January 2010 to June 2013 were seperated into (HALS) group (n=200) and conventional open surgery (COS) group (n=91) with a non-randomized method. The perioperative safety and efficacy of two groups and perioperative outcomes were compared. Results These two groups were comparable in operative time, lymph node harvest, and postoperative complications. However, HALS group had less intraoperative bleeding [(57.9±28.3) ml vs. (82.5±47.6) ml, P=0.000], shorter time to flatus[(3.0±1.4) d vs. (3.3±0.9) d, P=0.000], and shorter hospital stay[(7.3±4.2) d vs. (8.9±4.4) d, P=0.004]. There werer no significant differences in overall survival time and disease-free survival time between the two groups during 6 months to 3 years follow-up. Conclusions HALS results in similar outcomes of conventional open surgery for sigmoidectomy with the advantage of minimal invasiveness.