Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441179›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2015

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial.

James Fleshman, Megan Branda, Daniel J Sargent, Anne Marie Boller, Virgilio George, Maher Abbas, Walter R Peters, Dipen Maun, George Chang, Alan Herline and 15 more

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 514 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
514citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
46.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00726622 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase III Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection Versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlliance for Clinical Trials in OncologyRan2008 to 2019Enrolled486ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsOpen laparotomy and rectal resection, Laparoscopic-assisted rectal resection
NCT03574493 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial (RESET): Laparotomy vs Laparoscopy vs Robotic vs TaTME Rectal Surgery Matched Parallel Cohort Trial for High Surgical Risk Cancer Patients, With Mid- to Low Rectal Cancer

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2018 to 2024Enrolled1,098ConditionsRectal CancerArmsTME with LAR
NCT03683446 completednot on this map

Trends and Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer From 2005 to 2016 Using the ACS-NSQIP Database, a Retrospective Cohort Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCatherine H. Davis, MDRan2005 to 2017Enrolled31,795ConditionsColorectal Adenocarcinoma, Colorectal SurgeryArmsLaparoscopic rectal surgery, Open rectal surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

514 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,082 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Excision, and Observation for Early Rectal Cancer: The Phase II NEO Trial (CCTG CO.28) Primary End Point Results.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review

454 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.

James FleshmanBaylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Megan BrandaAlliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Daniel J SargentAlliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Anne Marie BollerNorthwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Virgilio GeorgeIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Maher AbbasCleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Walter R PetersBoone Hospital Center, Columbia, Missouri.
Dipen MaunFranciscan St. Francis Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
George ChangMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Alan HerlineVanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Alessandro FicheraUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Matthew MutchWashington University, St Louis, Missouri.
Steven WexnerCleveland Clinic-Weston, Weston, Florida.
Mark WhitefordThe Oregon Clinic, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
John MarksLankenau Hospital, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
Elisa BirnbaumWashington University, St Louis, Missouri.
David MargolinOchsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana.
David LarsonAlliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Peter MarcelloLahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Mitchell PosnerUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Thomas ReadLahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts.
John MonsonUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Sherry M WrenStanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Peter W T PistersMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Heidi NelsonMayo Clinic.
Alliance Data (United States) · USLahey Hospital and Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Chicago · USWashington University in St. Louis · USBaylor University Medical Center · USBoone Hospital Center · USCleveland Clinic Florida · USFranciscan Health Indianapolis · USIndiana University School of MedicineLankenau Medical Center · USNorthwestern University · USOchsner Medical Center · USOregon Clinic · USStanford University · USUniversity of Rochester · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Member Site CoreU10CA180821 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Evanthia Galanis · 2014 to 2026
$177.3M
Statistics CoreU10CA180882 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Sumithra Jay Mandrekar · 2014 to 2026
$115.0M
Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180821NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceEvidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease.

objectiveTo determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection.

interventionsStandard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation.

resultsTwo hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients.

trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

Indexed as

LaparotomyAdenocarcinomaAgedDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm, ResidualPostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26441179
PMCPMC5140087
OpenAlexW2104029004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.