Recurrence kinetics after laparoscopic versus open surgery in colon cancer. A meta-analysis

Ross Lilley; Evangeline Chan; Nicklaus Ng; Amber Orr; Marcin Szostok; Gloria Ting Ting Yeh; Ross Tulloch; George Ramsay; Zhirajr Mokini; Patrice Forget

doi:10.3390/jcm10184163

Recurrence kinetics after laparoscopic versus open surgery in colon cancer. A meta-analysis

Ross Lilley, Evangeline Chan, Nicklaus Ng, Amber Orr, Marcin Szostok, Gloria Ting Ting Yeh, Ross Tulloch, George Ramsay, Zhirajr Mokini, Patrice Forget^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. Methods: This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. Interventions: Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. Results: After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. Conclusion: We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.

Original language	English
Article number	4163
Number of pages	14
Journal	Journal of Clinical Medicine
Volume	10
Issue number	18
Early online date	15 Sept 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184163
Publication status	Published - Sept 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
No paper reported any conflicts of interest. Seven reported no external funding. The COST trial received a number of grants from the National Cancer Institute [15] and the COLOR trial received funding from Ethicon Endo‐surgery and the Swedish Cancer Foundation [19]. Neither corporation influenced initiation, design or any other aspect of the study.

Funding Information:
4 Independent Researcher, supported by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Mentorship Programme, B‐1000 Brussels, Belgium; zhirajrmokini@yahoo.com

Keywords

Colon cancer
Laparoscopic surgery
Meta-analysis
Open surgery
Recurrence kinetics

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.3390/jcm10184163Licence: CC BY

Lilley_etal_JCM_Recurrence_Kinetics_After_VoR
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
Final published version, 1.22 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{67ac253fc81e4584b1c6a4ed8b9aa30a,

title = "Recurrence kinetics after laparoscopic versus open surgery in colon cancer. A meta-analysis",

abstract = "Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. Methods: This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. Interventions: Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. Results: After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. Conclusion: We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.",

keywords = "Colon cancer, Laparoscopic surgery, Meta-analysis, Open surgery, Recurrence kinetics",

author = "Ross Lilley and Evangeline Chan and Nicklaus Ng and Amber Orr and Marcin Szostok and Yeh, {Gloria Ting Ting} and Ross Tulloch and George Ramsay and Zhirajr Mokini and Patrice Forget",

note = "Funding Information: No paper reported any conflicts of interest. Seven reported no external funding. The COST trial received a number of grants from the National Cancer Institute [15] and the COLOR trial received funding from Ethicon Endo‐surgery and the Swedish Cancer Foundation [19]. Neither corporation influenced initiation, design or any other aspect of the study. Funding Information: 4 Independent Researcher, supported by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Mentorship Programme, B‐1000 Brussels, Belgium; zhirajrmokini@yahoo.com ",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

doi = "10.3390/jcm10184163",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Medicine",

issn = "2077-0383",

publisher = "MDPI AG",

number = "18",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recurrence kinetics after laparoscopic versus open surgery in colon cancer. A meta-analysis

AU - Lilley, Ross

AU - Chan, Evangeline

AU - Ng, Nicklaus

AU - Orr, Amber

AU - Szostok, Marcin

AU - Yeh, Gloria Ting Ting

AU - Tulloch, Ross

AU - Ramsay, George

AU - Mokini, Zhirajr

AU - Forget, Patrice

N1 - Funding Information: No paper reported any conflicts of interest. Seven reported no external funding. The COST trial received a number of grants from the National Cancer Institute [15] and the COLOR trial received funding from Ethicon Endo‐surgery and the Swedish Cancer Foundation [19]. Neither corporation influenced initiation, design or any other aspect of the study. Funding Information: 4 Independent Researcher, supported by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Mentorship Programme, B‐1000 Brussels, Belgium; zhirajrmokini@yahoo.com

PY - 2021/9

Y1 - 2021/9

N2 - Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. Methods: This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. Interventions: Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. Results: After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. Conclusion: We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.

AB - Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. Methods: This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. Interventions: Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. Results: After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. Conclusion: We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.

KW - Colon cancer

KW - Laparoscopic surgery

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Open surgery

KW - Recurrence kinetics

U2 - 10.3390/jcm10184163

DO - 10.3390/jcm10184163

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85114895348

SN - 2077-0383

VL - 10

JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine

JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine

IS - 18

M1 - 4163

ER -

Recurrence kinetics after laparoscopic versus open surgery in colon cancer. A meta-analysis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this