| 1. |
- Bonjer, H. Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer : a meta-analysis
- 2007
-
In: Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960). - 0004-0010 .- 1538-3644. ; 142:3, s. 298-303
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of trials randomizing patients with colon cancer to laparoscopically assisted or open colectomy to enhance the power in determining whether laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is oncologically safe. DATA SOURCES: The databases of the Barcelona, Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST), Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR), and Conventional vs Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Patients With Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) trials were the data sources for the study. STUDY SELECTION: Patients who had at least 3 years of complete follow-up data were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Patients who had undergone curative surgery before March 1, 2000, were studied. Three-year disease-free survival and overall survival were the primary outcomes of this analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1765 patients, 229 were excluded, leaving 796 patients in the laparoscopically assisted arm and 740 patients in the open arm for analysis. Three-year disease-free survival rates in the laparoscopically assisted and open arms were 75.8% and 75.3%, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference, -5% to 4%). The associated common hazard ratio (laparoscopically assisted vs open surgery with adjustment for sex, age, and stage) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92). The 3-year overall survival rate after laparoscopic surgery was 82.2% and after open surgery was 83.5% (95% CI of the difference, -3% to 5%). The associated hazard ratio was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P = .61). Disease-free and overall survival rates for stages I, II, and III evaluated separately did not differ between the 2 treatments. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopically assisted colectomy for cancer is oncologically safe.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nagtegaal, Iris D., et al.
(author)
-
Lymph Nodes, Tumor Deposits, and TNM : Are We Getting Better?
- 2011
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 29:18, s. 2487-2492
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose New editions of the TNM staging system for colorectal cancer have been subject to extensive criticism. In the current study, we evaluate each edition of TNM and analyze stage migration caused by the different versions. Patients and Methods Two independent test populations were used: participants derived from a randomized surgical trial from the United Kingdom (n = 455) and patients from a population-based series from Sweden (n = 505). All slides from these patient cases were reviewed with special attention for the presence of tumor deposits. Tumor deposits were classified according to the fifth, sixth, and seventh editions of TNM and correlated with prognosis. Results Every change in edition of TNM led to a stage migration of between 33% and 64% in patients with tumor deposits. Reproducibility was best in the fifth edition of TNM. The prognostic value of the seventh edition was best only when all tumor deposits irrespective of size or contour were included as lymph nodes. The prognostic value of the fifth edition was better than that of the sixth. Conclusion We demonstrate there is a place for tumor deposits in the staging of patients with colorectal cancer. However, many questions remain about their definition and the reproducibility and use of this category in special situations, such as after neoadjuvant treatment. These should be the subject of additional research before use as a factor in TNM staging. This work demonstrates the necessity of testing modifications before their introduction.
|
|
