ArticlesShort-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial
Introduction
The past two decades have witnessed substantial improvements in the survival from colorectal cancer resulting from earlier diagnosis, improved efficiency and delivery of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and advances in surgical techniques such as total mesorectal excision.1 However, the mainstay of cure remains adequate surgical excision of the primary tumour. Since its initial use more than a decade ago2, 3, 4 curative colorectal resection may now be achieved with laparoscopic assistance, bringing advantages to patients such as more rapid recovery, fewer complications, and shorter duration of hospital stay than for those with standard treatment. Of the many non-randomised studies of laparoscopic resections,5, 6, 7, 8 most have concluded that the procedure is safe, despite previous concerns about atypical patterns of tumour recurrence, such as in the port sites.9, 10 However, randomised trials of colon cancer11, 12, 13, 14 have provided data for survival and disease-free intervals that do not show any reduced survival in laparoscopic-assisted treatment.
Results of large-scale randomised trials should be available and should address the concerns that laparoscopic surgery compromises surgical principles.15, 16, 17, 18 The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) trial of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer (CLASICC) was designed as a pragmatic trial to incorporate the standard clinical endpoints of survival and disease-free intervals, and to provide a detailed pathological analysis of all resected samples.19 We used these short-term endpoints as surrogates to predict long-term clinical outcomes20 and also assess the quality of surgery in not only cancer of the colon but also cancer of the rectum.
Section snippets
Patients
Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted surgery with conventional open surgery in patients with cancer of the colon or rectum from 27 UK centres. These patients were suitable for right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy, sigmoid colectomy, anterior resection, or abdominoperineal resection. Exclusion criteria were adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon, contraindications to pneumoperitoneum (chronic
Results
During the trial, 794 patients (268 randomly allocated to open surgery, 526 to laparoscopic surgery) from 32 surgeons were recruited (figure 1). 657 (83%) patients were recruited by surgeons who randomised more than 20 patients. The two groups were balanced with respect to baseline characteristics and pathological staging (table 1). Most procedures were undertaken with curative intent (ie, R0 or R1 classifications). As expected, length of incision was shorter for the laparoscopic group than for
Discussion
In our study, no differences were recorded between open surgery and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer with respect to tumour and nodal status, short-term endpoints, and quality of life. Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, the positivity rates of surgical resection margins were also similar between the two treatment groups. In patients with cancer of the rectum, total mesorectal excision was undertaken more frequently in the group
References (32)
- et al.
Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in an unselected group of patients
Lancet
(1992) - et al.
Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
A prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report
J Am Coll Surg
(1998) - et al.
Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic colectomy
Lancet
(1994) - et al.
Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection
Lancet
(1986) - et al.
Role of circumferential resection margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer
Lancet
(1994) A United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer research study of adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: preliminary results
Sem Oncol
(2001)- et al.
The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence?
Br J Surg
(1982) - et al.
Laparoscopic colectomy
Ann Surg
(1992)
Laparoscopic colectomy: a critical appraisal
Dis Colon Rectum
Prospective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five year results
Dis Colon Rectum
High morbidity rate after converted laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Br J Surg
Early results of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of 372 patients treated by Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) study group
Dis Colon Rectum
Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer
Dis Colon Rectum
Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer
Surgery
Cited by (2585)
Contemporary management of rectal cancer
2024, Surgery Open ScienceRobotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence
2024, Journal of Robotic SurgeryIs survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study
2024, International Journal of Colorectal DiseaseTata Memorial Centre Evidence Based Management of Colorectal cancer
2024, Indian Journal of Cancer
Participating surgeons and local pathologists listed at end of report