Skip to main content
Current Oncology logoLink to Current Oncology
. 2020 Jun 1;27(3):e251–e258. doi: 10.3747/co.27.5829

Real-world impact of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a population-based analysis

AE Drohan *,✉, CM Hoogerboord *, PM Johnson *, GJ Flowerdew †, GA Porte *,†
PMCID: PMC7339839  PMID: 32669930

Abstract

Background

Randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes and decreased morbidity in patients with rectal cancer who undergo laparoscopic surgery (lapsx) compared with open surgery (opensx). The objective of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes after lapsx and opensx in a real-world setting.

Methods

A national discharge abstract database was used to identify all patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in Canada (excluding Quebec) from April 2004 through March 2015. Short-term outcomes examined included same-admission mortality and length of stay (los).

Results

Of 28,455 patients, 82.4% underwent opensx, and 17.6%, lapsx. The use of lapsx increased to 34% in 2014 from 5.9% in 2004 (p < 0.0001). Same-admission mortality was lower among patients undergoing lapsx than among those undergoing opensx (1.08% and 1.95% respectively, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of same-admission mortality with lapsx was 36% lower than that with opensx (odds ratio: 0.64; p = 0.003). Median los was shorter after lapsx than after opensx (5 days and 8 days respectively, p = 0.0001). The strong association of lapsx with shorter los was maintained on multivariable analysis controlling for patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.

Conclusions

For patients with rectal cancer, shorter los and decreased same-admission mortality are associated with the use of lapsx compared with opensx.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer, laparoscopy, mortality, length of stay

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies, affecting approximately 6% of the Canadian population1. Recently, as with other surgical procedures, the use of laparoscopic surgery (lapsx) for rectal cancer has attracted interest. Several multicentre randomized controlled trials (rcts) have established noninferior rates of disease-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence in patients undergoing lapsx for rectal cancer compared with patients undergoing open surgery (opensx)2–7. Although two recent rcts (alacart8 and acosog Z60519) showed lower rates of “pathologically complete excision” in patients undergoing lapsx compared with opensx, resulting in some concern about the widespread adoption of lapsx for rectal cancer, the recent publication of 2-year follow-up data failed to identify a difference between lapsx and opensx in terms of disease-free survival and local recurrence10.

Randomized controlled trials have consistently demonstrated decreased morbidity, including less blood loss, less narcotic use, and quicker return of bowel function in patients undergoing lapsx11–13. Although trials have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in length-of-stay (los) or same-admission mortality, trends favouring lapsx were observed.

Despite some controversy in the literature about the oncologic safety of lapsx for rectal cancer, an increase in its use has been noted in several countries14–16. Although lapsx has clearly been implemented as a standard of care in many settings, population-based results of lapsx use are lacking, and it remains unclear whether the benefits of lapsx seen in randomized trials have been realized in the “real world.” The purpose of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes in all patients undergoing lapsx and opensx for rectal cancer in Canada.

METHODS

Data Source

This population-based analysis used data obtained from the nationwide Discharge Abstract Database (dad) held by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The dad is a national database that captures administrative, clinical, and demographic information about hospital separations (admissions, discharges, deaths, sign-outs, and transfers). All provinces, except Quebec, are required to report those data to the dad. Since 2004–2005, all diagnostic and therapeutic records in the dad have been reported using codes from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Canada (icd-10-ca) and the Canadian Classification of Health Interventions.

Patient Population

All adult patients with a Canadian postal code who underwent radical rectal resection for rectal cancer between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2015 were included in the analysis. Diagnostic codes for rectal cancer included the icd-10-ca codes C19 (malignant neoplasm of the rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (malignant neoplasm of the rectum). Table I lists procedural codes used to identify radical rectal resections; any procedures performed laparoscopically, laparoscopically assisted, laparoscopically hand-assisted, or begun laparoscopically but subsequently converted to open were categorized as lapsx. The relevant diagnostic and procedural codes had previously been validated by ices17.

TABLE I.

Procedure codes for radical rectal cancer resection

Procedure type Procedure codea Description
Sphincter-sparing

 Open 1.NQ.87.RD Partial excision of rectum with colorectal anastomosis
1.NQ.89.SF Total excision of rectum with colo-anal anastomosis
1.NQ.89.KZ Total excision of rectum with transanal sphincter-sparing total mesorectal excision and colo-anal anastomosis
1.NQ.87.TF Partial excision of rectum without anastomosis (colostomy and closure of rectal stump)

 Laparoscopic 1.NQ.87.DE Partial excision of rectum with colorectal anastomosis
1.NQ.87.DF Partial excision of rectum with colorectal anastomosis
1.NQ.89.GV Total excision of rectum with laparoscopic abdominal approach and transanal sphincter-sparing total mesorectal excision and colo-anal anastomosis
1.NQ.87.DX Partial excision of rectum without anastomosis (colostomy and closure of rectal stump)
Non-sphincter-sparing

 Open 1.NQ.89.RS Total excision of rectum with stoma formation and distal closure (anterior approach)
1.NQ.89.LH Total excision of rectum with stoma formation and distal closure

 Laparoscopic 1.NQ.89.AB Total excision of rectum with stoma formation and distal closure
a

From the Canadian Classification of Health Interventions.

In an attempt to capture only patients who would be eligible for either lapsx or opensx, patients who were pregnant, who underwent emergency surgery, or who underwent complex multivisceral resection were excluded. Patients were assigned to the fiscal year of admission for rectal cancer resection and were categorized into the applicable group: lapsx or opensx.

Outcomes and Covariates

We evaluated differences in same-admission mortality and los in individuals undergoing lapsx and opensx. “Same-admission mortality” was defined as death during the admission in which the rectal cancer resection was performed11. The los was measured from the date of rectal surgery, and the los analyses excluded patients who died in hospital.

Patient-level covariates included age, sex, and score on the Charlson comorbidity index (cci), a comorbidity measure that has been validated in a wide range of patient populations, including patients with colorectal cancer18–20. In Canada, the reported in-hospital mortality for patients with a cci of 0 is 1.5%; it is 28.8% for patients with a score of 6 or more21. System-level variables included surgeon and hospital volume, sphincter preservation, province, and year.

It has been well established in the literature that high surgeon volume is associated with improved outcomes in patients with rectal cancer22–26; however, the definition of “high-volume” is variable. In Canada, the relationship between surgeon volume and in-hospital mortality is linear, whereby increased surgeon volume has been associated with improved survival27. Our analysis tested whether that association would persist if the exposure were to be simplified into a dichotomized variable. We therefore calculated the mean annual number of rectal cancer surgeries for each hospital and surgeon, including only years in which at least 1 rectal cancer surgery was performed. Average annual volumes were dichotomized into high and low, with “high volume” being defined as a volume above the 50th percentile, consistent with prior rectal cancer volume–outcome studies26,28. High surgeon volume corresponded to 5 or more rectal cancer surgeries per year, and “high-volume hospitals” were those in which 20 or more rectal cancer surgeries were performed per year. Sphincter preservation was categorized as present or absent according to procedural codes.

Statistical Analysis

Patient and system characteristics were compared between the lapsx and opensx groups using the Student t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. Univariable logistic regression was used to estimate the unadjusted association of surgical approach (lapsx, opensx) with patient and system characteristics and same-admission mortality. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the unadjusted los for patients undergoing lapsx and opensx, given the non-normal distribution expected for that outcome. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to estimate the association of surgical approach with same-admission mortality, and linear regression of the logarithmic transformation of los was performed to test the association between lapsx and los, controlling for patient and system variables. The use of year as a variable in multivariable analysis created a time-trend analysis within this population-based study. Founded on known and expected clinico-demographic differences in the lapsx and opensx cohorts, we planned a priori to use a forced entry technique to include in the multivariable analysis all patient and system covariates examined.

The inclusion of both rectal cancer (icd-10-ca code C20) and rectosigmoid cancer (icd-10-ca code C19) in our cohort was a potential source of heterogeneity such that tumours of the rectosigmoid junction are technically easier to resect than are middle and low rectal tumours. To ensure that those two patient groups were not systematically different, we ran the same-admission mortality and los analyses after excluding patients with rectosigmoid tumours and compared those results with the results from the entire cohort.

All statistical analyses were performed using the Stata software application (release 14: StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, U.S.A.). For statistical testing, a 1-tailed p value less than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results of the logistic regression analysis are reported as odds ratios (ors) with 95% confidence intervals (cis). The study was approved by the Dalhousie University Ethics Board.

RESULTS

From April 2004 to March 2015, 38,010 patients were diagnosed with rectal cancer and underwent radical surgical resection. Of those patients, 28,455 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1) and formed the study cohort. Overall, 5002 patients underwent lapsx (17.6%), and 23,453 patients underwent opensx (82.4%). The proportional use of lapsx increased to 34.0% in 2014 from 5.9% in 2004. The lapsx and opensx groups showed significant differences in patient demographics and system-related factors (Table II). Patients undergoing lapsx were more likely to be female and younger, and to have fewer comorbidities than patients undergoing opensx. They were also more likely to be treated by a high-volume surgeon in a high-volume hospital and to undergo sphincter-sparing surgery.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Flow chart demonstrating the selection of a cohort of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from April 2004 to March 2015 in Canada, excluding Quebec. PC = postal code.

TABLE II.

Patient and system demographics among patients undergoing laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery in Canada (excluding Quebec) from April 2004 to March 2015

Variable Procedure type p Value

Overall Laparoscopic Open



(n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)
Patients 28,455 5,002 23,453

Mean age (years) 66.3±11.89 65.3±12.2 66.5±11.8 <0.0001

Age group
 ≤50 Years 2,750 9.7 582 11.6 2,168 9.2
 51–65 Years 10,369 36.4 1,870 37.4 8,499 36.2
 66–80 Years 11,885 41.8 1,975 39.5 9,910 42.3
 >80 Years 3,451 12.1 575 11.5 2,876 12.3

Sex <0.0001
 Women 9,263 32.6 1,912 38.2 7,351 31.3
 Men 19,192 67.4 3,090 61.8 16,102 68.7

Charlson comorbidity index <0.0001
 0–1 19,354 68.0 3,534 70.7 15,820 67.4
 2–5 1,870 6.6 307 6.1 1,563 6.7
 ≥6 7,231 25.4 1,161 23.2 6,070 25.9

Surgeon volume <0.0001
 Low (<5 per year) 14,282 50.2 2,241 44.8 12,041 51.3
 High (≥5 per year) 14,173 49.8 2,761 55.2 11,412 48.7

Hospital volume <0.0001
 Low (<20 per year) 14,230 50.0 2,308 46.1 11,922 50.8
 High (≥20 per year) 14,225 50.0 2,694 53.9 11,531 49.2

Sphincter preservation <0.0001
 No 6,959 24.5 579 11.6 6,380 27.2
 Yes 21,496 75.5 4,423 88.4 17,073 72.8

Year of surgery <0.0001
 2004 2,539 8.9 151 3.0 2,388 10.2
 2005 2,730 9.6 217 4.3 2,513 10.7
 2006 2,593 9.1 281 5.6 2,312 9.9
 2007 2,559 9.0 344 6.9 2,215 9.4
 2008 2,591 9.1 399 7.9 2,192 9.3
 2009 2,749 9.7 439 8.8 2,310 9.9
 2010 2,558 9.0 463 9.3 2,095 8.9
 2011 2,525 8.9 556 11.1 1,969 8.4
 2012 2,611 9.2 622 12.4 1,989 8.5
 2013 2,482 8.7 673 13.5 1,809 7.7
 2014 2,518 8.9 857 17.1 1,661 7.1

Province <0.0001
 Newfoundland and Labrador 886 3.1 27 0.5 859 3.9
 Prince Edward Island 175 0.6 18 0.4 157 0.7
 Nova Scotia 1,358 4.8 148 3.0 1,210 5.2
 New Brunswick 1,035 3.6 55 1.1 980 4.2
 Ontario 12,943 45.5 2,775 55.5 10,168 43.3
 Manitoba 1,497 5.3 214 4.3 1,283 5.5
 Saskatchewan 1,250 4.4 136 2.7 1,114 4.8
 Alberta 3,519 12.4 470 9.4 3,049 13.0
 British Columbia 5,792 20.4 1,159 23.1 4,633 19.8

Same-Admission Mortality

The same-admission mortality rate was 1.08% for lapsx and 1.95% for opensx (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, compared with opensx, lapsx was associated with a 36% decrease in the odds of mortality (or: 0.64; p = 0.004; Table III). Age greater than 65 years, male sex, cci score greater than 0, and low hospital volume were associated with increased odds of same-admission mortality. Year was also associated with same-admission mortality, whereby the odds of death decreased by 3% each year between 2004 and 2014. Surgeon volume, sphincter preservation, and province had no statistically significant association with same-admission mortality after rectal cancer surgery (Table III).

TABLE III.

Multivariable logistic regression of factors associated with same-admission mortality after rectal cancer resection, 28,455 cases, Canada

Variable Cases Unadjusted analysis Adjusted analysis



(n) (%) OR p Value 95% CI OR p Value 95% CI
Surgical procedure
 Open 23,453 82.4 1.00
 Laparoscopic 5,002 17.6 0.55 <0.0001 0.41 to 0.73 0.64 0.003 0.47 to 0.86

Age group
 ≤50 Years 2,750 9.7 1.00
 51–65 Years 10,369 36.4 1.77 0.11 0.89 to 3.58 1.65 0.16 0.82 to 3.34
 66–80 Years 11,885 41.8 6.30 <0.0001 3.24 to 12.23 5.41 <0.0001 2.77 to 10.55
 >80 Years 3,451 12.1 18.93 <0.0001 9.69 to 36.99 16.36 <0.0001 8.35 to 32.05

Sex
 Men 19,192 67.4 1.00
 Women 9,263 32.6 0.75 0.004 1.10 to 1.63 0.71 0.001 0.58 to 0.87

Charlson comorbidity index
 0–1 19,354 68.0 1.00
 2–5 1,870 6.6 4.62 <0.0001 3.66 to 5.82 3.30 <0.0001 2.60 to 4.18
 ≥6 7,231 25.4 1.66 <0.0001 1.35 to 2.03 1.67 <0.0001 1.36 to 2.05

Surgeon volume
 Low (<5 per year) 14,282 50.2 1.00
 High (≥5 per year) 14,173 49.8 0.87 0.13 0.73 to 1.04 1.12 0.28 0.91 to 1.36

Hospital volume
 Low (<20 per year) 14,230 50.0 1.00
 High (≥20 per year) 14,225 50.0 0.70 <0.0001 0.59 to 0.84 0.74 0.004 0.60 to 0.91

Sphincter preservation
 No 6,959 24.5 1.00
 Yes 21,496 75.5 0.91 0.36 0.75 to 1.11 1.06 0.58 0.86 to 1.30

 Year of surgery 0.96 0.002 0.93 to 0.98 0.97 0.04 0.94 to 0.99

Province
 Newfoundland and Labrador 886 3.1 1.00
 Prince Edward Island 175 0.6 0.84 0.78 0.24 to 2.89 0.63 0.47 0.18 to 2.20
 Nova Scotia 1,358 4.8 1.02 0.96 0.56 to 1.85 0.87 0.66 0.47 to 1.60
 New Brunswick 1,035 3.6 1.10 0.77 0.59 to 2.04 0.93 0.82 0.49 to 1.76
 Ontario 12,943 45.5 0.79 0.34 0.48 to 1.28 0.68 0.13 0.41 to 1.11
 Manitoba 1,497 5.3 1.12 0.70 0.63 to 2.00 0.94 0.84 0.52 to 1.70
 Saskatchewan 1,250 4.4 1.31 0.37 0.73 to 2.34 1.03 0.93 0.57 to 1.86
 Alberta 3,519 12.4 0.79 0.40 0.46 to 1.36 0.77 0.35 0.44 to 1.33
 British Columbia 5,792 20.4 0.92 0.73 0.55 to 1.52 0.81 0.42 0.49 to 1.35

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

LOS

The median los was significantly shorter after lapsx (5 days) than after opensx (8 days, p = 0.0001; Table IV). The strong association of lapsx with shorter los was maintained on multivariable analysis, where female sex, high surgeon volume, sphincter preservation, and specific province were also associated with shorter los (Table IV). Conversely, age greater than 50 years, cci score greater than 0, and high hospital volume were significant predictors of increased los after rectal cancer surgery.

TABLE IV.

Multivariable linear regression of factors associated with length of stay after rectal cancer resection, 27,943 cases, Canada

Variable Cases Regression type

(n) (%) Simple linear Multiple linear



Coeff. p Value 95% CI Coeff. p Value 95% CI
Procedure type
 Open 22,995 82.3 Reference
 Laparoscopic 4,948 17.7 −0.473 <0.0001 −0.49 to 0.45 −0.394 <0.0001 −0.41 to 0.38

Age group
 ≤50 Years 2,741 9.8 Reference
 51–65 Years 10,309 36.9 0.063 <0.0001 0.04 to 0.09 0.040 0.001 0.02 to 0.06
 66–80 Years 11,644 41.7 0.198 <0.0001 0.17 to 0.22 0.159 <0.0001 0.14 to 0.18
 >80 Years 3,249 11.6 0.411 <0.0001 0.38 to 0.44 0.372 <0.0001 0.34 to 0.49

Sex
 Men 18,816 67.3 Reference
 Women 9,127 32.7 −0.099 <0.0001 0.08 to 0.11 −0.069 <0.0001 −0.08 to 0.06

Charlson comorbidity index
 0 19,103 68.4 Reference
 1–5 1,763 6.3 0.273 <0.0001 0.24 to 0.30 0.208 <0.0001 0.18 to 0.23
 ≥6 7,077 25.3 0.076 <0.0001 0.06 to 0.09 0.059 <0.0001 0.04 to 0.07

Surgeon volume
 Low (<5 per year) 14,008 50.1 Reference
 High (≥5 per year) 13,935 49.9 −0.043 <0.0001 −0.06 to 0.03 −0.026 0.001 −0.04 to 0.01

Hospital volume
 Low (<20 per year) 13,930 49.9 Reference
 High (≥20 per year) 14,013 50.1 −0.012 0.09 −0.03 to 0.01 0.022 0.004 0.01 to 0.04

Sphincter preservation
 No 6,825 24.4 Reference
 Yes 21,118 75.6 −0.272 <0.0001 −0.29 to 0.26 −0.200 <0.0001 −0.22 to −0.18

Year of surgery −0.021 <0.0001 −0.02 to 0.02 −0.010 <0.0001 −0.01 to −0.01

Province
 Newfoundland and Labrador 868 3.1 Reference
 Prince Edward Island 172 0.6 −0.016 0.75 −0.11 to 0.08 0.012 0.80 −0.79 to 0.10
 Nova Scotia 1,330 4.8 −0.134 <0.0001 −0.19 to 0.08 −0.100 <0.0001 −0.15 to −0.05
 New Brunswick 1,012 3.6 0.005 0.87 −0.05 to 0.06 0.040 0.12 −0.01 to 0.09
 Ontario 12,735 45.6 −0.214 <0.0001 −0.26 to 0.17 −0.128 <0.0001 −0.17 to −0.09
 Manitoba 1,463 5.2 −0.019 0.46 −0.07 to 0.03 0.026 0.27 −0.02 to 0.07
 Saskatchewan 1,217 4.4 −0.024 0.37 −0.08 to 0.03 −0.010 0.69 −0.06 to 0.04
 Alberta 3,462 12.4 −0.114 <0.0001 −0.16 to 0.07 −0.048 0.02 −0.09 to −0.01
 British Columbia 5,684 20.3 −0.201 <0.0001 −0.24 to 0.16 −0.126 <0.0001 −0.17 to −0.09

CI = confidence interval.

After patients with rectosigmoid tumours (C19) were removed from the analysis, the strong association of lapsx with lower same-admission mortality and shorter los persisted.

DISCUSSION

This population-based study of 28,455 patients undergoing radical rectal cancer resection in Canada demonstrated an association of lapsx with lower same-admission mortality and shorter los (as compared with opensx) over a period that saw a substantial rise in the use of lapsx (to 34% in 2014 from 5.9% in 2004). Our study outlines the early experience of Canadian surgeons using lapsx for rectal cancer and suggests that in this “real-world setting,” minimally invasive surgery was associated with improved short-term outcomes. To our knowledge, this population-based analysis is the first to look at lapsx for rectal cancer in Canada.

To date, rcts have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in short-term mortality in patients undergoing lapsx compared with opensx; however, nonsignificant trends of reduced mortality after lapsx were seen in the color ii, alacart, and U.K. Medical Research Council’s clasicc studies2,3,8,11,13. Similarly, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized data from 3397 patients failed to reach statistical significance in comparing 30-day mortality after lapsx and opensx for rectal cancer (or: 0.81; 95% ci: 0.50 to 1.32)6. In our population-based analysis, we were able to detect a statistically significant reduction in same-admission mortality after lapsx (1.08% lapsx and 1.95% opensx, p < 0.0001), a relationship that persisted after controlling for age category, cci score, sex, surgeon and hospital volume, and sphincter preservation. However, given the retrospective nature of our study, the data lack the benefit of the randomization used in rcts, and a potential for unmeasured confounders and selection bias therefore exists.

The few population-based comparative studies of postoperative mortality after lapsx and opensx for colorectal disease seem to align with our findings. Dobbins et al.15 used a large administrative database in Australia to study the uptake and outcomes of lapsx for colorectal cancer. Paralleling our results, they found a significant reduction in 30-day and 90-day mortality after lapsx compared with opensx in the rectal cancer cohort. A French series involving more than 84,500 patients with colorectal cancer demonstrated significantly lower mortality rates after lapsx than after opensx (2% lapsx and 6% opensx, p < 0.0001), a result that was maintained on multivariable analysis29. A similar study in England found that the unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates after lapsx and opensx for rectal cancer were 2.2% and 3.3% (p = 0.043) respectively30.

Shorter los after lapsx was demonstrated in the color ii trial (8 days lapsx and 9 days opensx, p = 0.036), but other rcts failed to show a statistically significant difference between the open and laparoscopic groups8,9,12,11. However, pooled data and meta-analyses of randomized data from those trials demonstrated a 2- to 3-day shorter los after lapsx, supporting the findings of our large population-based study6,31. Reduced los after lapsx is likely related to the aggregate effect of the physiologic benefits of minimally invasive surgery, including less narcotic use, less blood loss, and quicker return of bowel function8,9,11,13,32,33. Interestingly, the median los after lapsx in our study was shorter than those reported in rcts, suggesting that, in carefully selected patients, the effect of lapsx in everyday practice might exceed that observed in the clinical trial setting8,9,11,13,33.

Our study also demonstrated a significant association of our primary outcomes with specific patient, hospital, and system variables. Compared with younger, healthier patients, those of older age or with a higher comorbidity score had worse same-admission mortality rates and longer los. The association between increased cci score and increased postoperative morbidity has previously been described34 and might explain increased same-admission mortality in that population. Similarly, older age has previously been described as a predictive factor for in-hospital mortality after colorectal surgery35.

Interestingly, we found an association of high hospital volume with longer LOS. That relationship might be explained by the centralization of patients with more medically complex needs and technically challenging rectal cancers to high-volume hospitals for surgical treatment. High surgeon volume was associated with shorter los, a relationship that has previously been documented in population-based studies of patients undergoing rectal cancer resection26.

Our study is strengthened by its large patient cohort, its population-based design, and an ability to examine lapsx for rectal cancer in the real-world setting. The 28,000-patient sample size powered the study to detect a small, but potentially meaningful difference in the same-admission mortality rates after lapsx and opensx for rectal cancer; it is possible that the nonsignificant trends observed in rcts would have reached statistical significance had the sample sizes been larger.

But the use of administrative data lends itself to the introduction of selection bias. Although we attempted to control for important factors associated with same-admission mortality and los, we cannot account for confounding by other unmeasured variables. The study also cannot clarify the decision-making that went into selecting the surgical approach (lapsx or opensx); it can control only for several patient and system factors in a cohort of patients felt to eligible for both lapsx and opensx. Patients with unmeasured favourable characteristics could possibly have been more likely to undergo lapsx than opensx, potentially overestimating the true benefit attributable to lapsx. That consideration is supported by two findings in the study data:

  • ■ The more-favourable measured confounders (younger age, lower cci scores) in the patients undergoing lapsx in general

  • ■ The smaller magnitude of the association of lapsx with our primary outcomes on multivariable compared with univariable analysis

Furthermore, our analysis detected a small but significant association between increasing year and lower same-admission mortality and shorter los. That observation further supports the potential for confounding in our analysis, because improvements in hospital and system factors might also explain a reduction in mortality and los over time. Examples of potentially relevant unmeasured confounders not captured in the dad include body mass index, tumour size or location, previous abdominal surgery, increased community resources to facilitate expedited hospital discharge, and use of “enhanced recovery after surgery” protocols.

In addition, our description of “laparoscopic surgery” lacks clinical granularity, such that we are unable to sub-classify cases that were completely laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, converted to open, or hand-assisted. The study therefore more accurately describes the association between laparoscopically attempted surgery and short-term outcomes, and potentially suggests that, compared with opensx, even partial or attempted minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is associated with short-term benefits. Our study also does not capture patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery; however, the uptake of that surgical approach in Canada has been slow, and our data precede many of the publications supporting its use36–39.

Finally, as a primary outcome, we chose to use same-admission mortality, which does not capture early deaths after discharge or readmission. Thus, true 30-day or 90-day mortality rates were not reported. Although studies vary in measuring mortality after rectal cancer, same-admission mortality rates have commonly been used in randomized trials11 and population-based studies35 alike. Although further research about differences in re-admission rates and 30- and 90-day mortality rates are important, our results suggest that the mortality benefits of lapsx might be realized as early as the initial postoperative period. The present study also does not measure other important non-oncologic short-term outcomes, including rates of re-admission and complications. Future research into those outcomes is important to further evaluate the safety of lapsx for rectal cancer in real-world populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This pan-Canadian study demonstrated that, after lapsx (compared with opensx), same-admission mortality is lower and los is shorter. Although our study is limited by the potential for confounding by variables that could influence patient selection for lapsx, the overall safety of rectal cancer surgery in Canada, in terms of short-term outcomes, has been demonstrated. Those findings are encouraging, given that the current role for lapsx in rectal cancer is under question. Collectively, the results of rcts suggest that survival and recurrence rates are improved with high-quality surgery that achieves negative margins, regardless of surgical technique (lapsx or opensx). Surgeons should therefore consider patient characteristics, tumour size and location, and their own skills and experience before performing lapsx. Our results do not suggest any reason for concern, in terms of short-term outcomes, with respect to the current use of lapsx for rectal cancer in Canada.

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2016. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ. Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council clasicc trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1638–45. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E on behalf of the color ii Study Group. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1324–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (corean trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:767–74. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jiang JB, Jiang K, Dai Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:1497–512. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2857-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N, et al. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:CD005200. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nienhüser H, Heger P, Schmitz R, et al. Short- and long-term oncological outcome after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:1418–33. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3738-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the alacart randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage ii or iii rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes. JAMA. 2015;314:1346–55. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage ii to iii rectal cancer: follow-up results of the acosog Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269:589–95. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (mrc clasicc trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66545-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (corean trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:637–45. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70131-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. on behalf of the Colorectal Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection ii (color ii) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (color ii): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:210–18. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Keller DS, Qiu J, Senagore AJ. Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1556–63. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5844-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dobbins TA, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Uptake and outcomes of laparoscopically assisted resection for colon and rectal cancer in Australia. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:415–22. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saia M, Buja A, Mantoan D, Sartor G, Agresta F, Baldo V. Isolated rectal cancer surgery: a 2007–2014 population study based on a large administrative database. Updates Surg. 2017;69:367–73. doi: 10.1007/s13304-017-0445-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Juurlink D, Preyra C, Croxford R, et al. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database: a Validation Study. Toronto, ON: ICES; 2006. pp. 1–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Marventano S, Grosso G, Mistretta A, et al. Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:1159–69. doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-1972-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hines RB, Chatla C, Bumpers HL, et al. Predictive capacity of three comorbidity indices in estimating mortality after surgery for colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4339–45. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wu CC, Hsu TW, Chang CM, Yu CH, Lee CC. Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index scores as predictor of survival in colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgical resection and chemoradiation. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e431. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:676–82. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Morche J, Mathes T, Pieper D. Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:204. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aquina CT, Probst CP, Becerra AZ, et al. High volume improves outcomes: the argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. Surgery. 2016;159:736–48. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Archampong D, Borowski DW, Dickinson HO. Impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon. 2010;8:341–52. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2010.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Liu CJ, Chou YJ, Teng CJ, et al. Association of surgeon volume and hospital volume with the outcome of patients receiving definitive surgery for colorectal cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Cancer. 2015;121:2782–90. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yeo HL, Abelson JS, Mao J, O’Mahoney PRA, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A. Surgeon annual and cumulative volumes predict early postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg. 2017;265:151–7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Karanicolas PJ, Dubois L, Colquhoun PHD, Swallow CJ, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. The more the better?: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on in-hospital mortality following colorectal resection. Ann Surg. 2009;249:954–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77bcd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW, Newman SC. Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;227:157–67. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199802000-00001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Panis Y, Maggiori L, Caranhac G, Bretagnol F, Vicaut E. Mortality after colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2011;254:738–43. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823604ac. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Faiz O, Warusavitarne J, Bottle A, Tekkis PP, Darzi AW, Kennedy RH. Laparoscopically assisted vs. open elective colonic and rectal resection: a comparison of outcomes in English National Health Service trusts between 1996 and 2006. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1695–704. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181b55254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:413–24. doi: 10.1245/ASO.2006.05.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos MD, Parrilla P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:982–9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhao JK, Chen NZ, Zheng JB, He S, Sun XJ. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical efficacy. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2:1097–102. doi: 10.3892/mco.2014.345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Manceau G, Hain E, Maggiori L, Mongin C, la Denise JPA, Panis Y. Is the benefit of laparoscopy maintained in elderly patients undergoing rectal cancer resection? An analysis of 446 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:632–42. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5009-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Masoomi H, Kang CY, Chen A, et al. Predictive factors of in-hospital mortality in colon and rectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:255–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ghezzi TL, Luca F, Valvo M, et al. Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1072–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.02.235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hara M, Sng K, Yoo BE, Shin JW, Lee DW, Kim SH. Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma: short-term and midterm outcomes from 200 consecutive cases at a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570–7. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C, Cheng Y. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2014;188:404–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ramji KM, Cleghorn MC, Josse JM, et al. Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1337–43. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4390-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Oncology are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES