4.4 Article

Short term results of complete (D3) vs. standard (D2) mesenteric excision in colon cancer shows improved outcome of complete mesenteric excision in patients with TNM stages I-II

期刊

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 557-564

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-013-1100-1

关键词

Colon cancer; Surgery; CME; Survival outcome

资金

  1. Western Norway Regional Health Authority
  2. University of Bergen
  3. Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the new method of complete mesocolic excision (CME) with a high (apical) vascular tie (D3 resection) had an immediate effect compared with a conventional (standard) approach even in those patients without lymph node metastases. A cohort of 189 consecutive patients with tumour-nodal-metastasis (TNM) stages I-II and a mean age of 73 years were operated on in the period from January 2007 to December 2008 in three community teaching hospitals. The CME approach (n = 89), used in hospital A, was compared to the standard technique used (n = 105) in two other hospitals, B and C. Lymph node yields from the specimens were used as a surrogate measure of radical resections. Outcome was analysed after a median follow-up of 50.2 months. In-hospital mortality rate was 2.8 % in the CME group and 8.6 % in the standard group. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in the CME group was 88.1 versus 79.0 % (p = 0.003) in the standard group, and the corresponding disease-free survival (DFS) was 82.1 versus 74.3 % (p = 0.026). Cancer-specific survival was 95.2 % in the CME group versus 90.5 % in the standard group (p = 0.067). Age, operative technique, and T category were significant in multiple Cox regressions of OS and DFS. Compared with the standard (D2) approach, introduction of CME surgical management of colon cancer resulted in a significant immediate improvement of 3-year survival for patients with TNM stage I-II tumours as assessed by OS and DFS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据