Rise in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Robotic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is associated with improved short-term outcomes and similar long-term oncologic outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer compared with open surgery. Although the robotic approach has ergonomic and technical benefits, how it has impacted the utilization of traditional laparoscopic surgery and minimally invasive surgery overall is unclear. OBJECTIVE: Describe trends in open, robotic, and laparoscopic approaches for colorectal cancer resections and examine factors associated with minimally invasive surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2020. SETTING: Commission on Cancer-accredited US facilities. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colon or rectal adenocarcinoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical approach rates (open, robotic, and laparoscopic). RESULTS: We identified 475,001 patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, of whom 192,237 (40.5%) underwent open surgery, 64,945 (13.7%) underwent robotic surgery, and 217,819 (45.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. For colon cancer, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery use steadily increased, with a peak prevalence of 54.0% in 2016, and total minimally invasive surgery (robotic + laparoscopic) was performed more often than open surgery from 2013 through 2020. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery had a peak prevalence of 37.2% in 2014 and declined from 2014 through 2020; robotic surgery prevalence increased throughout the study period (5.5% in 2010, 24.7% in 2015, and 48.8% in 2020). Minimally invasive surgery use increased in facilities performing robotic surgery every year during the study period. For both colon and rectal cancer, the use of open surgery decreased across all facilities throughout the study period. LIMITATIONS: This study used the National Cancer Database, which may not be generalizable to non-Commission on Cancer institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery steadily increased across all facilities from 2010 through 2020. Open resections declined, laparoscopic resections plateaued, and robotic resections increased for colon and rectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery increases may be driven by increases in robot-assisted surgery. See Video Abstract. EL AUMENTO DE LA CIRUGA MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL SE ASOCIA CON LA ADOPCIN A LA CIRUGA ROBTICA: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía mínimamente invasiva se asocia con mejores resultados a corto plazo y resultados oncológicos similares a largo plazo para pacientes con cáncer colorrectal en comparación con la cirugía abierta. Aunque el abordaje robótico tiene beneficios ergonómicos y técnicos, no está claro cómo ha afectado la utilización de la cirugía laparoscópica tradicional y la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en general.OBJETIVO:Describir las tendencias en los abordajes abiertos, robóticos y laparoscópicos para las resecciones de cáncer colorrectal y examinar los factores asociados con la cirugía mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando datos de la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer desde 2010 hasta 2020.ESCENARIO:Centros estadounidenses acreditados por la Comisión sobre el Cáncer.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con adenocarcinoma de colon o recto no metastásico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tasas de abordaje quirúrgico (abierto, robótico, laparoscópico).RESULTADOS:Identificamos 475.001 pacientes con diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma colorrectal no metastásico, de los cuales 192.237 (40,5%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 64.945 (13,7%) se sometieron a cirugía robótica y 217.819 (45,9%) se sometieron a cirugía laparoscópica. Para el cáncer de colon, el uso de cirugía mínimamente invasiva laparoscópica aumentó de manera constante, con una prevalencia máxima del 54,0% en 2016, y la cirugía mínimamente invasiva total (robótica + laparoscópica) se realizó con mayor frecuencia que la cirugía abierta desde 2013 hasta 2020. Para el cáncer de recto, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva laparoscópica tuvo una prevalencia máxima del 37,2% en 2014 y disminuyó desde 2014 hasta 2020; La prevalencia de la cirugía robótica aumentó durante el período de estudio (5,5 % en 2010, 24,7 % en 2015, 48,8 % en 2020). El uso de cirugía mínimamente invasiva aumentó en los centros que realizan cirugía robótica cada año durante el período de estudio. Tanto para el cáncer de colon como para el cáncer de recto, el uso de cirugía abierta disminuyó en todos los centros durante el período de estudio.LIMITACIONES:Se utilizó la base de datos nacional sobre el cáncer, que puede no ser generalizable a instituciones que no pertenecen a la Comisión sobre el Cáncer.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía mínimamente invasiva aumentó de manera constante en todos los centros entre 2010 y 2020. Las resecciones abiertas disminuyeron, las resecciones laparoscópicas se estabilizaron y las resecciones robóticas aumentaron para el cáncer de colon y recto. Los aumentos de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva pueden estar impulsados por aumentos en la cirugía asistida por robot. (Traducción--Ingrid Melo ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".