Skip to main content

by Dr.C.H. Weaver M.D. updated 8/2022

According to results published in The New England Journal of Medicine, laparoscopic surgery for early colon cancer is as safe and effective as standard surgery.

Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The surgical removal of the cancer remains an integral part of the treatment strategy for patients with cancer that has not spread to distant and/or several sites in the body. The conventional surgical procedure involves the opening of the pelvis and/or abdomen to gain access to the large intestine.

Colorectal Colon Rectal CancerConnect 490

Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic Surgery versus Open Colectomy

If you’ve been diagnosed with colon cancer and your healthcare team has determined that you’re a candidate for either complete or partial removal of your colon (colectomy) or a minimally invasive surgical approach (laparoscopic surgery), you’re likely wondering about the benefits and risks of each option. Specially, you may want to know how the less invasive laparoscopic approach measures up in terms of short- and long-term outcomes and side effects when compared with its more extensive alternative.

A basic understanding of the laparoscopic approach is a good place to begin:

Laparoscopic surgery involves the use of a video camera to create a live picture of the inside of the patient’s body, allowing surgeons to do procedures by making only a few small incisions rather than a larger opening in the abdomen.

In laparoscopic surgery, a few one-centimeter incisions are made in the patient’s abdomen. A small tube that holds a video camera can then be inserted through the incisions, creating a live picture of the inside of the patient’s body. This picture is continually displayed on a television screen so that physicians can perform the entire surgery by watching the screen. The cancer is removed through a larger incision.

What Does the Research Show?

To evaluate outcomes with laparoscopic colectomy in the real world (or outside of the clinical trials setting) researchers in the United States used the National Cancer Data Base to identify 45,876 patients with colon cancer with stage I–III disease between 18 and 84 years old. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic colectomy were matched with those who had undergone open colectomy. Overall there were 18,230 patients in each group.

The researchers found that patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy had a lower rate of death within 30 days following the procedure, compared with those who underwent open colectomy (1% of laparoscopic patients had died compared with 2% of open patients). Length of hospital stay was modestly shorter for laparoscopic patients (five versus six days) and among those with Stage III colon cancer, more of the laparoscopic patients were able to undergo additional chemotherapy (72% versus 67%).

Based on the outcomes measured in this study, laparoscopic colectomy appeared to have better results compared with open colectomy. The procedure can provide patients with a less invasive treatment option for Stage I–III colon cancer with important improvements in outcomes.

Researchers from Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group of the Laparoscopic Colectomy Trial completed a clinical trial directly comparing conventional surgery to laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer. This trial included 48 different medical institutions and 872 patients diagnosed with early colon cancer. Approximately half of the patients underwent laparoscopic surgery to remove their cancer, and the other half underwent conventional surgery. 

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

Mental Health

How to Manage Mental Health After a Cancer Diagnosis?

There is so much that happens after someone gets diagnosed with cancer.

Image placeholder title

Kisqali Improves Survival in Premenopausal ER+ Advanced Breast Cancer

Kisqali prolongs survival for Pre-menopausal ER positive HER2 Neg breast cancer. San Antonio 2020 update.

At approximately 3 years following surgery, cancer recurred in 16% of patients treated with laparoscopic surgery, and 18% of patients treated with standard surgery. Recurrences at the site of the surgical wound occurred in less than 1% of patients in both groups. Overall survival at 3 years following surgery was 86% and 85% for the laparoscopic-surgery group and the conventional-surgery group, respectively. The average time in the hospital was reduced by 1 day and pain medication use was reduced in the group that underwent laparoscopic surgery, compared to the group that underwent standard surgery.

Researchers in Spain also conducted a clinical trial to directly compare LAC to OC in 219 patients with colon cancer. Patients treated with an LAC had significantly shorter hospital time following surgery, significantly fewer surgery-related complications, fewer cancer recurrences and improved cancer-free survival. Researchers can only speculate as to why cancer recurrences were reduced in patients undergoing LAC. There were no differences in cancer-free survival between patients treated with LAC or OC who had stage I-II colon cancer; however, there was a significant increase in cancer-free survival between the two groups of treated patients who had stage III colon cancer. Time in surgery was longer for patients undergoing LAC, but blood loss was significantly reduced compared to patients undergoing OC.3

These researchers concluded that LAC appears to decrease surgery-related complications, reduce cancer recurrences and/or improve cancer-free survival compared to OC for patients with colon cancer. However, the researchers note that it is important for surgeons to be skilled in laparoscopic techniques in order to provide optimal outcomes in patients. Patients with early colon cancer who are to undergo surgery may wish to speak with their physician about their risks and benefits of laparoscopic surgery, as well as inquire about the experience of their surgeon with laparoscopic techniques.

Colorectal Colon Rectal Newsletter 490

Laparoscopic colectomy in the community setting

Between 2010 and 2011, researchers in the United States used the National Cancer Data Base to find 45,876 patients with colon cancer. Patients had been diagnosed with Stage I–III disease and were between 18 and 84 years old. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic colectomy were matched with those who had undergone open colectomy. There were 18,230 patients in each group.

The researchers looked at the rate of death within 30 days of colectomy, the need to be readmitted to the hospital, and length of stay. They also looked at the rate at which additional chemotherapy was started for Stage III patients.

Patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy had a lower rate of death within 30 days following the procedure, compared with those who underwent open colectomy (1% of laparoscopic patients had died compared with 2% of open patients). Length of hospital stay was also shorter for laparoscopic patients (five versus six days). Among those with Stage III colon cancer, more of the laparoscopic patients were able to undergo additional chemotherapy (72% versus 67%).

Based on the outcomes measured in these studies, laparoscopic colectomy appeared to have better results compared with open colectomy. The procedure can provide patients with a less invasive treatment option for Stage I–III colon cancer with important improvements in outcomes.2

Reference:

  1. Nelson H, Sargent D, Wie H, et al. A Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted and Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350:2050-2059.
  2. Zheng Z, Jemal A, Lin CC, Hu CY, Chang GJ. Comparative Effectiveness of Laparoscopy Vs Open Colectomy Among Nonmetastatic Colon Cancer Patients: an Analysis Using the National Cancer Data Base. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2015 Feb 6;107(3). pii: dju491. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju491.
  3. Lacy A, Garcia-Valdecasas J, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomized trial. The Lancet. 2002;359:2224-2229.