Evidence Hub

5-year outcome after complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based cohort study

C. A. Bertelsen, A. Neuenschwander, J. E. Jansen, J. Tenma, Michael Wilhelmsen, Anders Kirkegaard-Klitbo, E. R. Iversen, B. Bols et al.

The Lancet Oncology, 2019

1,069 participants · 155 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The benefits of extensive lymph node dissection as performed in complete mesocolic excision are still debated, although recent studies have shown an association with improved long-term outcomes. However, none of these studies had an intention-to-treat design or aimed to show a causal effect; therefore in this study, we aimed to estimate the causal oncological treatment effects of complete mesocolic excision on right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

We did a population-based cohort study involving prospective data collected from four hospitals in Denmark. We compared the oncological outcome data of patients at one centre performing central lymph node dissection and vascular division after almost complete exposure of the proximal part of the superior mesenteric vein (ie, the complete mesocolic excision group) with three other centres performing conventional resections with unstandardised and limited lymph node dissection (ie, non-complete mesocolic excision; control group). We included data for all patients in the Capital Region of Denmark undergoing elective curative-intent right-sided colon resections for stages I-III colon cancer, as categorised by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC; 5th edition), from June 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2013. Patients were followed-up for 5·2 years after surgery. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of recurrence after 5·2 years of surgery. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and competing risk analyses were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,069 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free