4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 246, 期 4, 页码 655-664

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318155a762

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA25224, CA12027, U10 CA21661, CA21115, CA31946, CA32102CA77202, CA65157] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Oncologic concerns from high wound recurrence rates prompted a multi - institutional randomized trial to test the hypothesis that disease-free and overall survival are equivalent, regardless of whether patients receive laparoscopic-assisted or open colectomy. Methods: Eight hundred seventy-two patients with curable colon cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic-assisted or open colectomy at I of 48 institutions by I of 66 credentialed surgeons. Patients were followed for 8 years, with 5-year data on 90% of patients. The primary end point was time to recurrence, tested using a noninferiority trial design. Secondary endpoints included overall survival and disease-free survival. (Kaplan-Meier) Results: As of March 1, 2007, 170 patients have recurred and 252 have died. Patients have been followed a median of 7 years (range 5-10 years). Disease-free 5-year survival (Open 68.4%, Laparoscopic 69.2%, P = 0.94) and overall 5-year survival (Open 74.6%, Laparoscopic 76.4%, P = 0.93) are similar for the 2 groups. Overall recurrence rates were similar for the 2 groups (Open 21.8%, Laparoscopic 19.4%, P = 0.25). These recurrences were distributed similarly between the 2 treatment groups. Sites of first recurrence were distributed similarly between the treatment arms (Open: wound 0.5%, liver 5.8%, lung 4.6%, other 8.4%; Laparoscopic: wound 0.9%, liver 5.5%, lung 4.6%, other 6.1%). Conclusion: Laparoscopic colectomy for curable colon cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on long-term oncologic endpoints from a prospective randomized trial.

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

4.7
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