Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Jul 8;334(2):136-148.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.8123.

Robotic vs Laparoscopic Surgery for Middle and Low Rectal Cancer: The REAL Randomized Clinical Trial

Qingyang Feng  1   2 , Weitang Yuan  3 , Taiyuan Li  4 , Bo Tang  5 , Baoqing Jia  6 , Yanbing Zhou  7 , Wei Zhang  8 , Ren Zhao  9 , Cheng Zhang  10 , Longwei Cheng  11 , Xiaoqiao Zhang  12   13 , Ye Wei  1   14 , Fei Liang  15 , Guodong He  1   2 , Jianmin Xu  1   2 ; REAL Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Comparative Study

Robotic vs Laparoscopic Surgery for Middle and Low Rectal Cancer: The REAL Randomized Clinical Trial

Qingyang Feng et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, but data on long-term oncological outcomes are still lacking.

Objective: To compare the 3-year locoregional recurrence rates of middle and low rectal cancer in patients who underwent robotic surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Design, setting, and participants: In this multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial, patients with middle or low rectal adenocarcinoma (cT1-T3, N0-N1, or ycT1-T3 Nx) and no distant metastasis were enrolled at 11 centers across 8 provinces in China from July 2016 to December 2020. Among the 1742 consecutive patients assessed for eligibility, 1240 were eligible and randomized. Follow-up continued until December 31, 2023.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo robotic or conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the 3-year locoregional recurrence rate. The primary analysis was performed as randomized, but excluded patients deemed ineligible after randomization. The secondary outcomes included disease-free survival; overall survival; and urinary, sexual, and defecation function.

Results: Of the 1240 patients enrolled, 1171 were included in the primary analysis (586 in the robotic surgery group; mean age, 59.1 [SD, 11.0] years; and 356 were men [60.8%] vs 585 in the laparoscopic surgery group; mean age, 60.7 [SD, 9.8] years; and 354 were men [60.5%]). The median follow-up time was 43.0 months (IQR, 36.7-60.0 months). The 3-year locoregional recurrence rate was 1.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%) in the robotic group vs 4.0% (95% CI, 2.4%-5.6%) in the laparoscopic group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.22-0.92], log-rank P = .03; adjusted HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.80]). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was higher in the robotic group (87.2%) vs the laparoscopic group (83.4%) (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.98], log-rank P = .04; adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.89]). No significant between-group difference was observed in 3-year overall survival (94.7% in the robotic group vs 93.0% in the laparoscopic group). Patients in the robotic group also had better urinary function, male and female sexual function, and defecation function at 3 and 6 months after surgery and better urinary function and male sexual function at 12 months after surgery.

Conclusions and relevance: Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly improved long-term oncological outcomes in patients with middle or low rectal cancer. With additional real-world clinical data and modern, improved training programs for surgeons, robotic surgery could be the preferred choice for patients with middle or low rectal cancer.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02817126.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Comment in

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. ; COLOR II Study Group . A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1324-1332. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. ; COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group . Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210-218. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):767-774. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(7):637-645. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70131-5 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Associated data