Skip to main content

Table 2 Pathologic and adjuvant therapy outcomes after inverse probability of treatment weighting

From: Three-year outcome after transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter comparative analysis

Variable

Surgical approach

P Value

TaTME, No. (%)

LapTME, No. (%)

 

Total, No.

344

366

 

AJCC pathological stage

0

38 (11.0)

32 (8.7)

0.8616

I

90 (26.1)

92 (25.1)

II

123 (35.7)

119 (32.5)

III

93 (27.0)

123 (33.6)

IV

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Mesorectal specimen

Complete

318 (93.2)

242 (89.3)

0.1678

Near-complete

20 (5.8)

13 (4.8)

Incomplete

3 (0.8)

16 (5.9)

Distance to CRM, mm (median, 95% CI)

10.0 (10.0–12.0)

7.5 (6.0–10.0)

0.0131

CRM involvement

32 (9.5)

56 (16.2)

0.0038

Distance to DRM, mm (median, 95% CI)

20.0 (20.0–25.0)

19.5 (15.0–20.0)

0.248

DRM involvement

6 (1.8)

7 (2.0)

0.6135

Rectal perforation

2 (0.8)

8 (3.2)

0.0262

Composite poor pathological outcomea

35 (10.6)

69 (24.7)

< 0.001

Perineural invasion

44 (13.0)

47 (18.3)

0.0109

Lymphovascular invasion

68 (21.4)

44 (17.0)

0.0182

Budding

no

155 (82.8)

38 (52.7)

0.0002

low

23 (12.3)

32 (44.4)

moderate

2 (1.0)

0 (0.0)

high

7 (3.7)

2 (2.7)

Differential grade

  

0.5589

good

20 (6.3)

15 (4.8)

0.5589

moderate

254 (80.3)

240 (77.4)

poor

17 (5.3)

22 (7.1)

Number of lymph node harvested (median, 95% CI)

15.0 (15.0–16.0)

14.0 (14.0–15.0)

0.0133

Adjuvant chemotherapy

42 (12.2)

61 (17.1)

0.0508

Adjuvant radiotherapy

4 (1.1)

15 (4.2)

0.0002

  1. Abbreviations: TaTME, transanal total mesorectal excision; LapTME, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CRM, circumferential resection margin; DRM, distal resection margin
  2. a Complete or near-complete TME, and negative CRM and DRM