4.5 Review

Is laparoscopic surgery acceptable for advanced colon cancer?

Journal

CANCER SCIENCE
Volume 100, Issue 4, Pages 567-571

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.01074.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In Japan, a nationwide survey has shown that the rate of advanced colorectal cancer has increased gradually to 65% of total laparoscopic surgeries in 2007. Many randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that in the short term, laparoscopic surgery is feasible, safe, and has many benefits, including reduction of perioperative mortality. In terms of long-term outcomes, four randomized controlled trials suggest that there are no differences in laparosupic and open surgery for colon cancer. However, important issues, including long-term oncological outcome, cost effectiveness, and the impact on the quality of life of patients, should be addressed in well-designed large-scale trials. In Japan, a retrospective multicenter study has demonstrated that the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery are beneficial, and the long-term outcomes are the same as for open surgery. In 2004, a prospective large-scale randomized controlled trial (JCOG0404) to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery was started to evaluate oncological outcomes for advanced colon cancer. This trial is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. In the present study, laparoscopic surgery is found to be acceptable for stage I disease of colon cancer, whereas it is controversial for stage II/III disease because of inadequate clinical evidence. Whether laparoscopic surgery is acceptable for advanced colon cancer or not should be confirmed by the Japanese large-scale prospective randomized controlled trial (JCOG0404) in the near future. (Cancer Sci 2009; 100: 567-571)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available