Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Surgery

Apples and oranges: the low and mid versus the upper rectum

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 6, pages 385–386 (2009)Cite this article

The role of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is currently unclear, with little supportive evidence from randomized trials. A study by Ng et al. in a large series of patients with rectal cancer has shown that laparoscopic resection is safe with good long-term outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 2050–2059 (2004).

  2. Leung, K. L. et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 363, 1187–1192 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayne, D. G. et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3061–3068 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lacy, A. M. et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359, 2224–2229 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ng, K. H. et al. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancers: lessons learned from 579 cases. Ann. Surg. 249, 82–86 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ng, S. S. et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 15, 2418–2425 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guillou, P. J. et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365, 1718–1726 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jayne, D. G. et al. Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br. J. Surg. 92, 1124–1132 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, NY, USA

    Martin Weiser & Leonard Saltz

Authors
  1. Martin Weiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonard Saltz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Saltz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiser, M., Saltz, L. Apples and oranges: the low and mid versus the upper rectum. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6, 385–386 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.86

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.86

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing