CURRENT STATUS OF LAPAROSCOPY FOR COLORECTAL DISORDERS Steven D. Wexner, M.D., FACS, FRCS, FRCS(Ed) Cleveland Clinic Florida Chairman, Department of Colorectal Surgery Professor of Surgery, Ohio State University Health Sciences Center at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Clinical Professor of Surgery, University of South Florida College of Medicine
Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Short term benefits –Bowel function recovery –Quality of life (including pain) –Hospital stay Costs Long term benefits –Recurrence –Survival
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer IEvidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial II-1Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization II-2Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case control analytic studies, preferable from more than one center or research group II-3Evidence obtained from comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention; dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments were also included in this category IIIOpinion of respected authorities based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees Levels of evidence* *Can Med Assoc, 1979
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Levels of evidence* National Health, Medical Research Council Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials 2 Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial 3-1 Evidence obtained from well-designated pseudorandomized controlled trials (alternate allocation or some other method) 3-2 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with concurrent controls and allocation not randomized (cohort studies) 3-3 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical control, two or more single-arm studies, or interrupted time series without a parallel control group 4 Evidence obtained from case series, either posttest or pretest/posttest
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function recovery Bowel function recovery (mean/median n of days) Retrospective Melotti Schiedeck Zhou Prospective Morino Tsang
AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function (mean/median n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Seow-Choen Ramos Goh Schwandner Hartley Champault Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery p<0.05 Case-control/Cohort
AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function (mean/median n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Milsom Curet Lacy Hasegawa p<0.05 Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery Randomized
The evidence that laparoscopy offers faster bowel function recovery than the traditional open approach may be considered high (Level I)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of Life - Pain AuthorYear N of patients Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? LapOpenLap p value Seow-Choen No- Ramos Yes<0.005 Goh No- Psaila Yes0.002 Schwandner No- Case-control/Cohort
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of Life - Pain AuthorYear N of patients Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? LapOpenLap p value Stage Yes < 0.05 Schwenk Yes < 0.01 Milsom Yes0.02 Weeks Yes0.03 Hasegawa Yes0.002 Randomized
Randomized trial (COST trial) 449 patients 228 Laparoscopy (Lap), 221Open Pain, hospital stay Quality of life (2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months) –Symptom distress scale –Quality of life index –Global rating scale (1-100) Weeks, JAMA 2002 Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of life
Results Lap n = 228 Open n = 221 Age (years) Gender M:F 108:120108:113 Tumor stage IIIIIIIV ASA classification I or II I or II III III P=NSWeeks, JAMA 2002
Results Lap n = 228 Open n = 221 p value Oral analgesics IV narcotics/analgesics <0.001 Hospital stay <0.001 Weeks, JAMA 2002 > Patients in the Lap group had only greater mean global rate scores at 2 weeks after surgery (76.9 vs. 74.4; p=.0009) > No other differences in quality of life Values are means
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer The superiority of laparoscopy in reducing pain during the same length of the postoperative period seems evident (Level I) Other aspects of quality of life warrant further investigation
AuthorYearPatients Hospital Stay Retrospective Melotti Schiedeck Zhou Prospective Yamamoto Anderson Morino Tsang Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay
AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Lord Franklin Seow-Choen Ramos Goh Khalili Psaila p<0.05 Cohort/case-control studies Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay
AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Schwandner Fleshman Leung Hartley Baker Anthuber Champault p<0.05 Cohort/case-control studies (cont)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Stage Schwenk Milsom Curet Lacy Weeks Hasegawa Randomized p<0.05
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital stay There is high evidence (Level I) that laparoscopy for malignancy is associated with an earlier discharge compared to laparotomy
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs Retrospective study Philipson, Wold J Surg 1997 Lap n = 28 Open n = 33 p Direct costs OR/recovery OR/recovery Ward Ward ICU ICU Total Total < Indirect costs <0.001 Overall total costs <0.001 (Australian $)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs Retrospective study Khalili, DCR 1998 Lap n = 80 Open n = 90 p OR costs ($) 2,1001, Total costs ($) 14,80014,
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs Retrospective study Psaila, Br J Surg 1998 Lap n = 29 Open n = 25 p Disposable equipment (lb) 140 (200) 400 (220) 0.05 Total cost (lb) 3300 (1700) 2900 (1500) NS Values are mean (s.d)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs The data available does not provide adequate evidence on whether total costs differ between laparoscopy and laparotomy in the treatment of malignancy
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Author, year N of patients Mean FU time (months) Recurrence (%) OverallLocalDistant Retrospective Huscher, Schiedek, Prospective Lumley, Anderson, Scheidbach,
Cohort/case-control studies Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Author,year N of patients Mean FU (months) Recurrence (%) OverallLocalDistant LapOpenLapOpenLapOpenLapOpen Franklin, Ramos, Khalili, / Schwandner, / Santoro, Lezoche, / Hartley, Feliciotti, p=NS
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Author, year N of patients Mean FU (months) Survival time Overall survival (%) TNM/Dukes stages Retrospective Fleshman, year I-93; II-72; III-53 Color trial, year I-95; II-98; III-93 Poulin, year72.1 Lechaux, year79 Prospective Scheidbach, year80.9 Anderson, year A-100; B-76; C-51 Morino, year I-92; II-79; III-67
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Author, year N of patients Mean FU (months)Survival Overall survival (%) TNM Stage LapOpenLapOpen Franklin, /485-year Leung, year Khalili, year Schwandner, year9393 Santoro, year Leung, /284-year Hartley, year7177 Lujan, year I-73; II-61;III-55 I-75;II-65; III-46 Champault, year Pantakar, year I-76; II-68; III-53 I-80; II-64; III-50 Cohort/case-control studies
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Randomized Controlled Trial 111 Laparoscopy vs. 106 Laparotomy Non metastatic colon cancer Median follow-up time: 43 (27-85) months Postoperative chemotherapy for all suitable patients with Stage II or III rectal cancer Intention-to-treat analysis Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Laparoscopy(n=106)Open(n=102) Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Tumor recurrence 18 (17%) 28 (27%) 0.72 ( ) 0.07 Type of recurrence Distant metastasis Distant metastasis Locoregional relapse Locoregional relapse Peritoneal seeding Peritoneal seeding Port-site metastasis Port-site metastasis Time to recurrence (months) 15 (14) 17 (12) Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intention 6 (33%) 9 (32%)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Laparoscopy(n=106)Open(n=102) Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Overall mortality 19 (18%) 27 (26%) 0.77 ( ) 1.04 Cancer-related mortality 10 (9%) 21 (21%) 0.68 ( ) 0.03 Causes of death Perioperative mortality Perioperative mortality Tumor progression Tumor progression Others Others
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Predictive factors Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Probability of being free of recurrence Lymph node metastasis (presence or absence) Surgical procedure (Open vs. Lap) Preoperative serum CEA (> ng/ml vs. ng/ml vs. < 4 ng/ml) 0.31 ( ) 0.39 ( ) 0.43 ( ) Overall survival Surgical procedure (open vs. Lap) Lymph-node metastasis (presence vs. absence) 0.48 ( ) 0.49 ( ) Cancer-related survival Lymph-node metastasis (presence vs. absence) Surgical procedure (open vs. Lap) 0.29 ( ) 0.38 ( ) Cox’s regression model
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Overall survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Cancer-related survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence free – by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Overall survival- by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Cancer related survival – by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002
Laparoscopic Colectomy: Cancer Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancies a systematic review English language Randomized controlled trials Controlled clinical trials Case series/reports Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer 52 papers met inclusion criteria52 papers met inclusion criteria –“Little high level evidence was available” –“The evidence base for laparoscopic-assisted reection of colorectal malignancies is inadequate to determine the procedures safety and efficacy” Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Disadvantages vs. Open Colectomy Significantly longer operative timesSignificantly longer operative times Possibly more expensivePossibly more expensive Possibly worse short term immune effectsPossibly worse short term immune effects Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer “Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming”“Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming” The new procedure’s advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain”The new procedure’s advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain” Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Advantages vs. Open Colectomy Improved cosmesis (no data but appears uncontentious)Improved cosmesis (no data but appears uncontentious) Quicker hospital dischargeQuicker hospital discharge Less narcotic use, though possibly larger benefits for certain types of colectomy (low colonic)Less narcotic use, though possibly larger benefits for certain types of colectomy (low colonic) Possibly less pain at rest, at least for patients who have uncovered proceduresPossibly less pain at rest, at least for patients who have uncovered procedures Possibly earlier return of bowel function and resumption of normal dietPossibly earlier return of bowel function and resumption of normal diet Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Short term Quality-of-Life outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer (COST Study) AIMS –Are disease free and overall survival equivalent ? –Is laparoscopic approach associated with better QOL ? Weeks et al. JAMA 2002
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Randomized control trial 449 patients –Adenocarcinoma of single segment of colon –Excluded: Acute presentation, rectal and transverse colon cancers, advanced local disease, those lesions with evidence of metastatic disease, ASA IV or V Quality of surgery: –All surgeons with > 20 cases; Random audit of cases Weeks et al. JAMA 2002
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Outcomes: –Survival: still pending –QOL at 2days, 2 weeks and 2 months using: »Symptom Distress Scale, Global QOL Scale, QOL index Results: Intention to Treat Analysis –Shorter use of narcotics –Shorter length of stay by 0.8 days (p<0.01) –Quality of life: no difference Weeks et al. JAMA 2002
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Conclusions –“The modest benefits in short term QOL measures we observed are not sufficient to justify the use of this procedure in the routine care setting” Unresolved Issues: –Blunting of QOL differences via analgesic use –QOL differences between POD 2 and POD 14 –Recurrence and survival outcomes –Incidence of small bowel obstruction Weeks et al. JAMA 2002
Laparoscopic Colectomy : Prospective, Randomized, Controlled 48 institutions, 872 patients Prospective, randomized Follow-up 4.4 years Conversion 21% Endpoint was time to tumor recurrence Nelson, NEJM 2004
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Laparoscopic (n=435) Open(n=425) Age7069 Female Location Right Right Left Left Sigmoid Sigmoid TNM Stage Unknown Unknown Nelson, NEJM 2004
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Outcome at Surgery Laparoscopic (N=435) Open(N=425) P value Bowel margins (cm) Lymph nodes Surgery time (min) 15090<0.001 Conversion90-- Intraoperative complications 815NS Length of incision (cm) 186<0.001 Nelson, NEJM 2004
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Post-operative Laparoscopic(n=435)Open(n=425) IV narcotics (days) 34<0.001 PO narcotics (days) Length of Stay 56< day mortality 24NS Complications9285NS Rates of readmission 1012NS Rates of reoperation <2%<2%NS Nelson, NEJM 2004
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Outcome Laparoscopic(n=435)Open(n=425) P value Recurrence*(4.4yrs) Wound recurrence 1%1% P=0.50 NS 3yr survival 86%85% P=0.51 NS Nelson, NEJM 2004 * Laparoscopic procedure not significantly inferior to Open Procedure.
Cumulative Incidence of Recurrence at Any Satge
Overall Survival at Any Stage
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Conclusions No difference between: –Time to recurrence –Disease-free survival –Overall survival Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic resection is similar to that of open resection Laparoscopic Approach is associated with less pain and a shorter hospital stay than conventional surgery Nelson, NEJM 2004
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Conclusion Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer has shown to be potentially superior to laparotomy in regard to short-term benefits and equivalent with regard to long term benefits Available data appear to support that laparoscopic colectomy and conventional open colectomy have either similar or superior long-term outcomes (Level 1 evidence)
Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Conclusion Surgeons with sufficient expertise and ongoing peer-reviewed data collection may offer this therapy to appropriately selected patients
International Colorectal Disease Symposium 16 th Annual An International Exchange of Medical and Surgical Concepts Marriott’s Harbor Beach Resort & Spa Fort Lauderdale, Florida February 17 – 19, 2005