From evidence to a day-to-day laparoscopic colectomy

Surg Endosc (2011) 25:985–987 DOI 10.1007/s00464-010-1262-0

From evidence to a day-to-day laparoscopic colectomy Ernst Hanisch • Dimosthenis E. Ziogas

Published online: 31 July 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

High-quality evidence for incorporating new medical devices, technology, and surgical techniques into public health care with safety, efficiency, and consideration for costeffectiveness requires analysis [1]. Laparoscopic techniques have revolutionized surgery. Indeed, minimally invasive approaches that can dramatically improve a patient’s outcomes have been evolved rapidly over the past two decades. But how fast can new surgical techniques (e.g., laparoscopic colectomy) be translated into a wide clinical use when evidence-based processes including comparativeeffectiveness research (CER) have been completed? This question about laparoscopic colectomy in the United States is highlighted by Singla et al. [2] in the March issue of Surgical Endoscopy. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 1998–2006), the authors identified a total of 209,769 patients who underwent laparoscopic or open elective colon resection. The hospitals in which colectomies were performed were divided according to hospital volume into equal thirds, with the highest third defined as high volume and the lower twothirds defined as low volume. The primary end point was the use of laparoscopy after adjustment for patient and hospital covariates. Colorectal cancer, one of the major cancer types, suggests a major problem not only in the United States but also

E. Hanisch Klinik fu¨r Allgemein, Viszeral, und Endokrine Chirurgie, Asklepios Klinik Langen, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der JWG-Universita¨t Frankfurt, Ro¨ntgenstrasse 20, 63225 Langen, Germany D. E. Ziogas (&) Department of Surgery, University of Ioannina, School of Medicine, Ioannina, TK 451 10, Greece e-mail: [email protected]

worldwide. Although Singla et al. [2] in their report do not provide precise data on the benign or malignant type of the disease, most colon resections are performed because of colon cancer. Over recent decades, open surgery has been standardized, including adequate resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes, resulting in complete resection with no macroscopic or microscopic evidence of residual tumor (R0 resection). Is laparoscopic R0 colectomy feasible, safe, equally effective in terms of oncologic outcomes, and favorable regarding quality of life (QOL) compared with open surgery? In this evidence-based medicine era and U.S. health reform, requirements and rules for approving new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures have become more intensive, with emphasis given to more robust evidence. In deciding whether to pay for new medical technologies, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is becoming more specific about its requirements for evidence of improved health outcomes in the Medicare population [3]. A recent example involves the CMS decision not to cover computed tomographic (CT) colonography because of insufficient evidence for screening benefits [3]. The heightened emphasis on evidence will almost certainly continue as more people recognize that the old approach is unsustainable. The $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research (CER) included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act underscores an emerging appreciation that we need better mechanisms for generating relevant evidence and for enabling patients, clinicians, and payers to use that evidence in decision making [3–5]. The best tools of CER are thought to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and metaanalysis [5]. Under the rules and requirements set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CER, and CMS, what is the grade of evidence supporting laparoscopic surgery for

123

986

gastrointestinal cancer, particularly colon cancer? Results from RCTs and a metaanalysis have demonstrated the equal safety and efficiency in terms of oncologic outcomes and a QOL superiority of laparoscopic colectomy over open colectomy for patients with stages 1 to 3 colon cancer [6]. Rapidly accumulating results from small RCTs and retrospective studies suggest benefits for rectal cancer patients treated by laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections and gastric cancer patients treated by laparoscopic gastrectomy, but the results of ongoing or new phase 3 RCTs should be awaited before robust conclusions are drawn [7–12]. What is the current grade of evidence for laparoscopic surgical treatment of gastric cancer? To date, conclusive evidence for laparoscopic gastrointestinal cancer surgery has emerged only for laparoscopic colectomy used to treat patients with colon cancer. Based on high-quality evidence favoring laparoscopic over open colectomy, what are the acceptance and performance rates for laparoscopic colectomy? In the study by Singla et al. [2], overall, only 8,407 of colon resections (4%) were performed using laparoscopy. The authors found that high-volume hospitals used laparoscopy more often than low-volume hospitals (5.2 vs. 3.4%). After adjustment for covariates using multivariate analysis and propensity scores, analysis showed that patients with private insurance and those in the highest income bracket were more likely to receive laparoscopy (p \ 0.0009). High-volume hospitals were more likely to perform laparoscopically assisted colectomy than low-volume hospitals. Singla et al. [2] concluded that socioeconomic differences appear to exist between high- and low-volume hospitals in the use of laparoscopy in the United States and that laparoscopic colectomy is more often performed in highvolume hospitals. Although the study by Singla et al. [2] is limited by its retrospective nature, the proportion of laparoscopic colectomy in the United States still is small even in high-volume hospitals. Safe and effective laparoscopic colectomy for cancer requires a R0 for both primary tumor and regional lymph nodes, which is time consuming and requires high-volume surgeons with expertise in laparoscopic technique. Perhaps this rate is higher in highly specialized cancer centers that attract surgeons and clinicians with high expertise in cancer treatment. The latest advances in new technologies promise improvement besides improved QOL through laparoscopically or robotically assisted colorectal resections as well as improvement in oncologic outcomes through highthroughput DNA-sequencing technologies for cancer patients. Indeed, these massively parallel sequencing techniques allow optimism for the identification of causal cancer genome mutations, which may lead to a new generation of biomarkers and biologic agents [13–29].

123

Surg Endosc (2011) 25:985–987 Disclosures Ernst Hanisch and Dimosthenis E. Ziogas have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References 1. Cuschieri A, Tang B (2010) Human reliability analysis (HRA) techniques and observational clinical HRA. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:12–17 2. Singla A, Simons JP, Carroll JE, Li Y, Ng SC, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2010) Hospital volume as a surrogate for laparoscopically assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc 24:662–669 3. Neumann PJ, Tunis SR (2010) Medicare and medical technology: the growing demand for relevant outcomes. N Engl J Med. Epub ahead of print 4. Mushlin AI, Ghomrawi H (2010) Health care reform and the need for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 362:e6 5. Roukos DH (2010) Bionetworks-based personalized medicine versus comparative-effectiveness research or harmonization of both in cancer management? Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10(3): 247–250 6. Ziogas D, Polychronidis A, Kanellos I, Roukos D (2009) Laparoscopic colectomy survival benefit for colon cancer: is evidence from a randomized trial true? Ann Surg 249:695–696 7. Ziogas D, Roukos D (2008) Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: may it improve also survival? Surg Endosc 22:1405–1406 8. Bali C, Ziogas D, Roukos DH, Baltogiannis G (2010) Laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection: expectations for improving oncological outcomes. Ann Surg 251:185–186 9. Katsios GC, Baltogiannis G, Roukos DH (2010) Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: comparative-effectiveness research and future trends. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10(4):473–476 10. Liakakos T, Roukos DH (2009) Randomized evidence for laparoscopic gastrectomy short-term quality of life improvement and challenges for improving long-term outcomes. Ann Surg 250: 349–350 11. Liakakos T, Roukos D (2008) Laparoscopic gastrectomy: advances enable wide clinical application. Surg Endosc 22: 1553–1555 12. Roukos DH (2009) Laparoscopic gastrectomy and personal genomics: high-volume surgeons and predictive biomedicine may govern the future for resectable gastric cancer. Ann Surg 250:650–651 13. Roukos DH (2009) Isolated tumor cells in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 361:1994–1995 14. Roukos DH, Tzakos A, Zografos G (2009) Current concerns and challenges towards tailored anti-angiogenic therapy in cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9:1413–1416 15. Roukos DH (2009) Breast cancer outcomes: the crucial role of the breast surgeon in the era of personal genetics and systems biology. Ann Surg 249:1067–1068 16. Ziogas D, Roukos DH (2009) Genetics and personal genomics for personalized breast cancer surgery: progress and challenges in research and clinical practice. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1771–1782 17. Roukos DH (2009) Personalized cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 9:227–229 18. Roukos DH (2010) Systems medicine: a real approach future personalized oncology? Pharmacogenomics 11(3):283–287 19. Roukos DH (2009) Genome-wide association studies: how predictable is a person’s cancer risk? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9:389–392 20. Roukos DH (2010) Targeting gastric cancer with trastuzumab: new clinical practice and innovative developments to overcome resistance. Ann Surg Oncol 17:14–17

Surg Endosc (2011) 25:985–987 21. Roukos DH (2009) Radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360:1362 (author reply 1363) 22. Roukos DH, Paraschou P, Lorenz M (2000) Distal gastric cancer and extensive surgery: a new evaluation method based on the study of the status of residual lymph nodes after limited surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 7:719–726 23. Roukos DH, Ziogas D (2009) Human genetic and structural genomic variation: would genome-wide association studies be the solution for cancer complexity like Alexander the Great for the ‘‘Gordian Knot’’? Ann Surg Oncol 16:774–775 24. Roukos DH, Katsios C, Liakakos T (2010) Genotype-phenotype map and molecular networks: a promising solution in overcoming colorectal cancer resistance to targeted treatment. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10(5):541–545 25. Roukos DH (2010) Beyond HER2 and trastuzumab: heterogeneity, systems biology, and cancer origin research may guide the

987

26.

27.

28.

29.

future for personalized treatment of very early but aggressive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(17):e279–e280 Ziogas D, Roukos DH (2009) CDH1 testing: can it predict the prophylactic or therapeutic nature of total gastrectomy in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer? Ann Surg Oncol 16(10):2678–2681 Roukos DH, Ziogas D (2010) From tumor size and HER2 status to systems oncology for very early breast cancer treatment. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10(2):123–128 Roukos DH (2010) Novel clinico-genome network modeling for revolutionizing genotype-phenotype-based personalized cancer care. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10(1):33–48 Katsios C, Roukos DH (2010) Individual genomes and personalized medicine: life diversity and complexity. Per Med 7(4):347–350

123