Abstract:BackgroundWhether extended lymphadenectomy for right colon cancer leads to increased perioperative complications or improves survival is still controversial. This trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of complete mesocolic excision (CME) versus D2 dissection in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for patients with right colon cancer. This article reports the early safety results from the trial.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority, trial was done at 17 hospitals in nine provinces of China. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years with histologically confirmed primary adenocarcinoma located between the caecum and the right third of the transverse colon, without evidence of distant metastases. Central randomisation was done by means of the Clinical Information Management-Central Randomisation System via block randomisation (block size of four). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CME or D2 dissection during laparoscopic right colectomy. Central lymph nodes were dissected in the CME but not in the D2 procedure. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to their group assignment but the quality control committee were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival, but the data for this endpoint are not yet mature; thus, only the secondary outcomes—intraoperative surgical complications and postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, mortality (death from any cause within 30 days of surgery), and central lymph node metastasis rate in the CME group only—are reported in this Article. This early analysis of safety was preplanned. The outcomes were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle (excluding patients who no longer met inclusion criteria after surgery or who did not have surgery). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02619942. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up is ongoing.FindingsBetween Jan 11, 2016, and Dec 26, 2019, 1072 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. After exclusion of 77 patients, 995 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (495 in the CME group and 500 in the D2 dissection group). The postoperative surgical complication rate was 20% (97 of 495 patients) in the CME group versus 22% (109 of 500 patients) in the D2 group (difference, −2·2% [95% CI −7·2 to 2·8]; p=0·39); the frequency of Clavien-Dindo grade I–II complications were similar between groups (91 [18%] vs 92 [18%], difference, −0·0% [95% CI −4·8 to 4·8]; p=1·0) but Clavien-Dindo grade III−IV complications were significantly less frequent in the CME group than in the D2 group (six [1%] vs 17 [3%], −2·2% [−4·1 to −0·3]; p=0·022); no deaths occurred in either group. Of the intraoperative complications, vascular injury was significantly more common in the CME group than in the D2 group (15 [3%] vs six [1%], difference, 1·8 [95% CI 0·04 to 3·6]; p=0·045). Metastases in the central lymph nodes were detected in 13 (3%) of 394 patients who underwent central lymph node biopsy in the CME group; no patient had isolated metastases to central lymph nodes.InterpretationAlthough the CME procedure might increase the risk of intraoperative vascular injury, it generally seems to be safe and feasible for experienced surgeons.FundingThe Capital Characteristic Clinical Project of Beijing and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

Three-Field Versus Two-Field Lymphadenectomy in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: 3-Year Survival Outcomes of a Randomized Trial

Esophagectomy With Three-Field Versus Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Middle and Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: Long-Term Outcomes of a Randomized Clinical Trial

RA02.01: COMPARISON OF THREE-FIELD VERSUS TWO-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR THORACIC MIDDLE AND LOWER ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: POST-OPERATIVE RESULTS OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Three-field Versus Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Carcinoma of the Middle and Lower Esophagus: Short-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Three-field Versus Two-Field Lymph Node Dissection for Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.

Three-field versus two-field lymphadenectomy in transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: short-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Two-Field Lymph Node Dissection with Adjuvant Radiation Therapy is Similar to 3-Field Lymph Node Dissection for Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

[Efficacy Comparison Between Two-Field and Three-Field Lymphadenectomy for Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma].

Three-Field or Two-Field Resection for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

254 lymph node dissection in t1 and t2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery

Comparison of 2-field lymphadenectomy with 3-field lymphadenectomy for middle third thoracic esophageal carcinomas

Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Post-Operative Atrial Fibrillation and Long-Term Mortality in Patients among Esophageal Cancer.

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Safety after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis Versus McKeown—A Real-World Multicenter Observational Study from China.

Randomized phase II trial comparing tumor bed alone with tumor bed and elective nodal postoperative radiotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Extent of Lymphadenectomy for Surgical Management of Right-Sided Colon Cancer: the Randomized Phase III RELARC Trial

Extensive Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy During Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Optimal Results from a Single Center

Short-term Outcomes of Complete Mesocolic Excision Versus D2 Dissection in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colectomy for Right Colon Cancer (RELARC): a Randomised, Controlled, Phase 3, Superiority Trial

Thoracic recurrent laryngeal lymph node metastases predict cervical node metastases and benefit from three-field dissection in selected patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Transcervical Versus Transthoracic Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: a Randomized and Controlled Trial Protocol

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): A multicenter prospective cohort study

Extended Right Thoracic Approach Compared with Limited Left Thoracic Approach for Patients with Middle and Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Three-year Survival of a Prospective, Randomized, Open-label Trial