Search

Purpose CEA is a useful tumor marker for colon cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of changes in CEA levels before and after surgery in colon cancer patients who underwent radical surgery. Methods A total of 601 colon cancer patients who underwent radical surgery from January 2007 to December 2017 at a single institution were evaluated. Patients were categorized according to preoperative and postoperative CEA levels. We adjusted patient characteristics using propensity score matched analysis between groups and compared survival outcomes according to changes in CEA levels before and after surgery. Results According to the preoperative and postoperative CEA levels, patients were classified into 3 groups: group 1, ≤5 and ≤5 ng/mL, respectively (n = 407); group 2, >5 and ≤5 ng/mL, respectively (n = 127); and group 3 (>5 and >5 ng/mL, respectively (n = 67). Postoperative CEA elevation was associated with adverse clinical features. Before and after matching, the patients in group 3 showed significantly lower disease-free survival and overall survival rates compared to the patients in group 1 and group 2. In multivariate analysis, changes in CEA levels were an independent prognostic factor of overall survival (P = 0.041). Conclusion The changes in CEA levels before and after surgery can be a useful prognostic factor for disease-free survival and overall survival in colon cancer patients.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between patients under 60 years of age and older patients over 80 years of age who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with colorectal cancer. METHODS A retrospective analysis of 519 colorectal patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2007 and December 2012 was collected and categorized into 2 groups of patients, those under 60 years of age (n = 404) and those over 80 years of age (n = 115). RESULTS The group of patients over 80 years of age had a significantly higher ASA physical status classification (P < 0.001), more preoperative comorbidities (P < 0.001), had a tendency towards more tumors in a colonic location (P = 0.034), and more advanced American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stage (P = 0.001). A higher proportion of right hemicolectomy and abdominoperineal resection was performed and more transfusions were required in the group of patients over 80 years of age (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in operative time, conversion rate, resection margins, and numbers of harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, and morbidity between the 2 groups. No postoperative mortality was found in the present study. The 3-year DFS for over 80 years age group and under 60 years age group were 73.5% and 73.9%, respectively (P = 0.770). CONCLUSION Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was effective and safe for elderly patients over 80 years of age and resulted in postoperative outcomes similar to those in younger patients. The postoperative morbidity after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery was not increased in over 80 years of age.

Colonic perforation during colonoscopy is a rare but lethal complication. Recently, it is usually managed with laparoscopic approach. Here we present our experience of single incision laparoscopic repair for sigmoid colon perforation during colonoscopy. A 57-year-old male patient presented with an acute sigmoid colon perforation event during diagnostic colonoscopy. Emergency operation was performed with transumbilical single incision laparoscopic exploration. The perforated site of sigmoid colon was primarily repaired with the curved endoscopic linear stapler. The patient was discharged after 5 days uneventfully. Single port laparoscopic repair is a safe and feasible method for the management of acute colonoscopic perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy.

Purpose The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and to compare the short-term surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Methods Forty-four patients who underwent SILS were compared with 263 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 2011 and September 2012. Results In the SILS group, eleven cases (25.0%) of right hemicolectomy, 15 (34.1%) anterior resections, and 18 (40.9%) low anterior resections were performed. Additional ports were required in 10 rectal patients during SILS operation. In the 32 patients with rectosigmoid and rectal cancer in the SILS group, patients with mid and lower rectal cancers had a tendency to require a longer operation time (168.2 minutes vs. 223.8 minutes, P = 0.002), additional ports or multiport conversion (P = 0.007), than those with rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer. Both SILS and conventional groups had similar perioperative outcomes. Operation time was longer in the SILS group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (185.0 minutes vs. 139.2 minutes, P < 0.001). More diverting stoma were performed in the SILS group (64.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor location in the rectum (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.858-10.560; P = 0.001), SILS (95% CI, 3.450-20.233; P < 0.001), diverting stoma (95% CI, 1.606-9.288; P = 0.003), and transfusion (95% CI, 1.092-7.854; P = 0.033) were independent risk factors for long operation time (>180 minutes). Conclusion SILS is a feasible, not inferior treatment option for colorectal cancer, and appears to have similar results as standard conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy, despite the longer operative time.