Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic- assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer

A randomized trial

Jane C. Weeks, Heidi Nelson, Shari Gelber, Daniel Sargent, Georgene Schroeder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

596 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. Objective: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. Main Outcome Measures: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. Results: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P=.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P=.03). Conclusion: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)321-328
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume287
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jan 16 2002

Fingerprint

Colectomy
Colonic Neoplasms
Quality of Life
Analgesics
Intention to Treat Analysis
Length of Stay
Colon
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic- assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer : A randomized trial. / Weeks, Jane C.; Nelson, Heidi; Gelber, Shari; Sargent, Daniel; Schroeder, Georgene.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, No. 3, 16.01.2002, p. 321-328.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8bc50a425ae64620b482bc84c6954926,
title = "Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic- assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Context: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. Objective: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. Main Outcome Measures: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. Results: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P=.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P=.03). Conclusion: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.",
author = "Weeks, {Jane C.} and Heidi Nelson and Shari Gelber and Daniel Sargent and Georgene Schroeder",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "16",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "287",
pages = "321--328",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic- assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Weeks, Jane C.

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Gelber, Shari

AU - Sargent, Daniel

AU - Schroeder, Georgene

PY - 2002/1/16

Y1 - 2002/1/16

N2 - Context: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. Objective: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. Main Outcome Measures: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. Results: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P=.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P=.03). Conclusion: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.

AB - Context: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. Objective: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. Main Outcome Measures: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. Results: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P=.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P=.03). Conclusion: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037116647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037116647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 287

SP - 321

EP - 328

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 3

ER -