Minimally invasive treatments for early colorectal cancer: comparison of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery.

Kyeong Eui Kim, Yoo Jin Lee, Ju Yup Lee, Woon Kyung Jeong, Seong Kyu Baek, Sung Uk Bae
{"title":"Minimally invasive treatments for early colorectal cancer: comparison of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery.","authors":"Kyeong Eui Kim,&nbsp;Yoo Jin Lee,&nbsp;Ju Yup Lee,&nbsp;Woon Kyung Jeong,&nbsp;Seong Kyu Baek,&nbsp;Sung Uk Bae","doi":"10.14216/kjco.22006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Endoscopic treatment and laparoscopic surgery are minimally invasive options for early treatment of colorectal cancer, however, more evidence of the long-term outcomes between the two procedures is needed to guide clinical decisions. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study group included 60 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment and 38 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2010 and December 2013 at a single study site.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Histopathological diagnoses showed that 43 (78.3%) carcinomas in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group were mucosal to sm1, 13 (21.7%) were sm2 or deeper, and 17 high-risk cases (28.3%) in the endoscopic group underwent additional surgery. The median operation time, time to sips of water, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the endoscopic group than in the laparoscopic group. The overall survival rates of patients in the endoscopic group and laparoscopic groups were 91.5% and 87.4%, respectively (P=0.391), and the disease-free survival rates were 90.4% and 87.4% (P=0.614), respectively. Systemic recurrences occurred in two patients (1.6%) in the endoscopic group and one patient (2.0%) in the laparoscopic group. Local recurrence combined with systemic recurrence in one patient (0.8%) in the endoscopic group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer can be performed safely with better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":74045,"journal":{"name":"Korean journal of clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/69/55/kjco-18-1-47.PMC9942766.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14216/kjco.22006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Endoscopic treatment and laparoscopic surgery are minimally invasive options for early treatment of colorectal cancer, however, more evidence of the long-term outcomes between the two procedures is needed to guide clinical decisions. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer.

Methods: The study group included 60 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment and 38 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2010 and December 2013 at a single study site.

Results: Histopathological diagnoses showed that 43 (78.3%) carcinomas in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group were mucosal to sm1, 13 (21.7%) were sm2 or deeper, and 17 high-risk cases (28.3%) in the endoscopic group underwent additional surgery. The median operation time, time to sips of water, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the endoscopic group than in the laparoscopic group. The overall survival rates of patients in the endoscopic group and laparoscopic groups were 91.5% and 87.4%, respectively (P=0.391), and the disease-free survival rates were 90.4% and 87.4% (P=0.614), respectively. Systemic recurrences occurred in two patients (1.6%) in the endoscopic group and one patient (2.0%) in the laparoscopic group. Local recurrence combined with systemic recurrence in one patient (0.8%) in the endoscopic group.

Conclusion: Endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer can be performed safely with better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期结直肠癌的微创治疗:内镜切除与腹腔镜手术的比较。
目的:内镜治疗和腹腔镜手术是结肠直肠癌早期治疗的微创选择,然而,需要更多的证据来证明这两种手术之间的长期结果来指导临床决策。因此,本研究旨在比较内镜和腹腔镜治疗早期结直肠癌的肿瘤学结果。方法:研究组纳入2010年1月至2013年12月在单一研究地点接受内镜治疗的60例早期结直肠癌患者和接受腹腔镜手术的38例患者。结果:组织病理学诊断显示,内镜下粘膜下夹层组43例(78.3%)为粘膜至sm1, 13例(21.7%)为sm2及以下,内镜下夹层组17例(28.3%)高危患者行附加手术。内镜组的中位手术时间、饮水时间和住院时间均明显短于腹腔镜组。内镜组和腹腔镜组患者总生存率分别为91.5%和87.4% (P=0.391),无病生存率分别为90.4%和87.4% (P=0.614)。内镜组2例(1.6%)和腹腔镜组1例(2.0%)出现全身复发。内镜组局部复发合并全身复发1例(0.8%)。结论:与腹腔镜手术相比,内镜下早期结直肠癌切除术可以安全进行,具有更好的短期疗效和相当的长期肿瘤预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of tumor budding and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes with clinicopathological parameters in gallbladder carcinoma. Clinical course of pancreas cancer diagnosed after spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with borderline lesion: two case reports. Measurement of human peritoneal surface area using artificial intelligence software in abdominal computed tomography. Pancreatoduodenectomy with colon-last approach for advanced pancreatic head cancer. Prediction of the minimum amount of anti-adhesive agent required for entire intra-abdominal cavity using fluorescent dye.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1