Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: The KLASS-02-RCT Randomized Clinical Trial

Surgical Merits of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy Techniques with D2 Lymphadenectomy in Obese Patients with Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for complex procedures to overcome technical limitations of open or laparoscopic methods. However, evidence of any subsequent benefit is lacking. This study was undertaken to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in technically demanding procedure-D2 dissection in obese patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data collected between 2010 and 2018 on D2 gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer were used to conduct retrospective analysis, comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 185 patients, there were 69 open, 62 laparoscopic, and 54 robotic gastrectomy procedures. Median ages for respective surgical groups were 66 (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-64 years), 63 (IQR: 59-63), and 59 years (IQR: 56-60 years) (p = 0.009). Early-stage gastric cancer ranked proportionately higher in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005), but operative times were similar among groups. Estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and drainage volumes (p = 0.001) were higher in the open group, relative to others. Although a robotic approach performed best in overall compliance and in mean number of retrieved lymph node, observed rates of early or late complications did not differ by technique. The open group experienced significantly poorer overall (p = 0.039) and relapse-free (p < 0.001) survival compared with the laparoscopic or robotic group. Robotic surgery emerged from multivariable Cox regression as a protective factor for relapse-free survival (HR = 0.314, 95% CI 0.116-0.851).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients with gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy proved comparable to open or laparoscopic technique short-term, yielding better long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy is as effective as open surgery in terms of long-term survival: a single-institution study on gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been widely accepted to treat early-stage gastric cancer. However, it is still controversial to perform laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer. We performed the present study to compare the long-term outcomes of patients after laparoscopic or open gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 182 gastric cancer patients receiving gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy between January 2011 and December 2015 at Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital were retrospectively retrieved. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of these 182 patients were compared. Then, the prognostic significance of positive lymph node ratio (LNR) was assessed.

RESULTS

As a whole, OS (P = 0.789) and DFS (P = 0.672) of patients receiving laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy were not significantly different from those of patients receiving open surgery. For stage I patients, laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy was not significantly different from open surgery in terms of OS (P = 0.573) and DFS (P = 0.157). Similarly, for stage II patients, laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy was not significantly different from open surgery in terms of OS (P = 0.567) and DFS (P = 0.830). For stage III patients, laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy was not significantly different from open surgery in terms of OS (P = 0.773) and DFS (P = 0.404). Laparoscopic or open gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy was not proven by Cox regression analysis to be an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. High LNR was significantly associated with worse OS (P < 0.001) and DFS (P < 0.001). Surgical type did not significantly affect prognosis of patients with low LNR or survival of patients with high LNR.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with gastric cancer, laparoscopic gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy was not inferior to open surgery in terms of long-term outcomes. LNR is a useful prognostic marker for GC patients.

Comparisons of perioperative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Data about whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is applicable in serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients remain rare. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy (OG) in pT4a gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection.

METHODS

A total of 1086 consecutive pT4a patients (101 patients with LG and 985 with OG) who underwent curative gastrectomy in a high-volume center between 2006 and 2016 were evaluated. Demographics, surgical, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance baseline confounders, and COX regression analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

After PSM adjustment, a well-balanced cohort comprising 101 patients who underwent LG and 201 who underwent OG was analyzed. Operative time (288.7 vs. 234.2 min; P < 0.001) was significantly longer, while estimated blood loss (172.8 vs. 220.7 ml; P < 0.001) was significantly less in the LG group compared with the OG group. There were no significant differences between groups in total number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative stays, readmission rate, and postoperative complication rate. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was not significant different in the LG and OG groups (66.7% vs. 62.8%, P = 0.668), and the subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that the surgical approach was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 1.123; 95%CI: 0.803-1.570; P = 0.499). In sensitivity analysis including 78 pairs well-matched patients operated by an experienced surgeon, the results were similar to these for the matched entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LG can be a safe and feasible approach for pT4a gastric cancer treatment. However, well-designed high-quality RCTs are expected to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on laparoscopic and robotic distal and total gastrectomy in comparison to open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted and 197 randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (non-RCT) studies were identified. An evaluation of early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced (AGC) gastric cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

For EGC and laparoscopic distal resection (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG) a total of 10 RCT and 6 non-RCT, including 4329 patients (laparoscopic 2010 vs. open 2319) were identified. At a high evidence level (1+, 1++) there was no significant difference in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality, mortality and long-term oncological outcome compared to open gastrectomy (OG). After LDG and LTG patients showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery and lower total morbidity. In contrast, the operation times were significant longer compared to ODG and OTG. For distal AGC and LDG in 6 RCT, including 2806 patients (LDG 1410 vs. ODG 1369) comparable results could be found also with a high evidence level (1++). The evidence for LTG in cases of AGC was lower (2-, 2+). Currently ,only 6 non-RCT with a total of 1090 patients (LTG 539 vs. OTG 551) are available, which showed comparable results to LDG but further high-quality RCTs are necessary. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is currently being evaluated. According to the first studies RG for EGC seems to be equivalent to LDG; however, the evidence is currently low (3 to 2-).

[Status of minimally invasive gastrectomy : Current advancements: robotic surgery and intraoperative imaging for gastric cancer]

The surgical treatment of gastric cancer has arrived at a turning point towards the routine application of minimally invasive techniques. After the first results of prospective randomized trials from Asia confirmed the surgical and oncological safety, the latest results of international trials provided evidence for minimally invasive gastrectomy of advanced gastric cancer in a multimodal setting. A new addition in the field of minimally invasive procedures is robotic-assisted surgical techniques, which have already been implemented for these indications in many centers in Germany. The technical advantages that are applicable in the robotics setting in comparison to laparoscopy lead to a rapid dissemination of the procedure but still need to be evaluated in controlled trials. Further developments for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer are found in the field of intraoperative imaging procedures. In this field various technologies are available, such as fluorescence imaging using a near-infrared camera, which requires the use of a fluorescent agent or the hyperspectral camera system, which does not require the application of a fluorophore and merges pictures from visible and non-visible wavelengths to a functional image. It is to be expected that in the future various technological advancements can make a valuable contribution to the surgical treatment of gastric cancer in the clinical routine, especially if they support and facilitate the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Articulating laparoscopic instruments: are they a breakthrough that can overcome current limitations in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery?

Laparoscopic surgery is rapidly evolving with technological advances, but there are several drawbacks. An articulating device, with freedom of a perfect 360°, is attractive as a solution to overcome the restriction of instrument movement caused by straight tools. Its usefulness or efficacy should be supported by relevant scientific evidence. However, it is sometimes difficult to prove it because the factors influencing the surgical outcomes are complex and closely related to each other.

Essential updates 2019/2020: Perioperative and surgical management of gastric cancer

Perioperative and surgical management of gastric cancer have been changing as pivotal phase II trials and landmark phase III trials offer new insights to the existing knowledge. The results of many landmark trials have been published or presented in the past year, many of which have changed or will change current clinical practice. For example, FLOT4 has completely changed the regimen of perioperative chemotherapy in Europe. Furthermore, evidence for minimally invasive surgery for clinical Stage I was firmly established by KLASS-01 and JCOG0912 for distal gastrectomy and CLASS-02, KLASS-03, and JCOG1401 for total gastrectomy. Moreover, promising results were provided by CLASS-01 and KLASS-02 for locally advanced gastric cancer. For adjuvant chemotherapy, JACCRO GC-07 (START-2) has provided a new doublet regimen for pathological Stage III, which is often refractory to chemotherapy. Conversely, JCOG0501 poses a significant challenge for advanced tumors, such as large type 3 and scirrhous (type 4) tumors. In this review, we briefly review recent updates and discuss future perspectives of gastric cancer treatment.

A matched cohort study of the failure pattern after laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: does the operative approach matter?

BACKGROUND

Due to lacking evidence for confirming the efficacy of performing laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the static and dynamic failure patterns after laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in LAGC.

METHODS

A total of 1792 LAGC patients who underwent radical resection between January 2010 and January 2017 were divided into the LG group (n = 1557) and the OG group (n = 235). Propensity score matching was performed to balance the two groups. Dynamic hazard rates of failure were calculated using the hazard function. Early and late failure were defined as failure occurring before and after 2 years since surgery, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 1175 patients with LAGC were included after matching (LG group, n = 940; OG, n = 235). The failure rate of the whole cohort was 43.2% (508/1175), accounting for 41.4% (389/940) and 50.6% (119/235) in the LG and OG groups, respectively. Although the two groups showed no significant differences in failure rate for any failure type, landmark analysis showed a lower early distant recurrence rate in the stage IIa-IIIb subgroup of the LG group (OG versus LG: 30.3% versus 21.1%, P = 0.004). The dynamic hazard rate peaked at 9.4 months (peak rate = 0.0186) before gradually declining. In stage IIa-IIIb patients, the hazard rate of the OG group remained significantly higher than that of the LG group within the first 2 years in terms of distant recurrence (peak rate: OG versus LG, 0.0091 versus 0.0055).

CONCLUSION

Given the differences in early failure between LG and OG, more intensive surveillance for distant recurrence within the first 2 years should be considered for patients with stage IIa-IIIb after OG.

Comparison of totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and laparoscopic surgery have been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer, however, the feasibility and safety of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy after NACT still remain unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At the Gastrointestinal cancer center of Peking university cancer hospital and institute in Beijing, clinical and pathological data of patients who has received NACT, followed by radical laparoscopic gastrectomy was retrospectively reviewed between March 2011 and November 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether intracorporeal anastomosis or extracorporeal anastomosis had been performed, short-term outcomes (post-operative recovery index and complications) and economic cost were compared between 2 groups.

RESULT

All of 139 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. 87 [62.6%] patients had totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) and 52 [37.4%] patients had laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG). Overall complication rate was 28.8% in all patients. TLG group was significantly associated with lower overall complication rate (21.8% VS 40.4%; p = 0.019) and major complication rate (3.4% VS 13.5%; p = 0.001) compared with LAG group. Overall cost was similar (p = 0.077). In subgroup analysis, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) group showed lower overall postoperative complication rate (19.0% VS 56.5%; p = 0.011), as well as marginal significant differences in major complication (0% VS 21.7%; p = 0.05) than laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) group. Earlier first liquid diet (4 [3.5-5] day VS 6 [4-6.5] day; p = 0.047), earlier first aerofluxus (3 [3-4] day VS 4 [3-4.5] day; p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay (9 [8-12] day VS 12 [10-15] day; p = 0.004) were observed in TLTG group. Overall and major complication rate were similar in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) group (22.7% VS 27.6%; p = 0.611; 4.5% VS 6.9%; p = 0.639; respectively). Significant differences were found between TLDG and LADG groups regarding time to first liquid diet (4 [3-5] day VS 6 [3.75-6] day; p = 0.006), time to first aerofluxus (3 [3-3] day VS 4 [3-6] day; p< 0.001), time to first defecation (4 [4-5] day VS 5 [4-6] day; p = 0.045), time to remove all drainage (7 [6-8] day VS 8 [6-9] day; p = 0.021), white blood cell count on postoperative Day 1 (9.54 ± 2.49 10⁹/L VS 10.91 ± 2.89 10⁹/L; p = 0.021)and postoperative hospital stay (9 [8-10] day VS 10 [9,13] day; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

For patients with Locally advanced gastric cancer who received NACT, totally laparoscopic gastrectomy, including TLTG and TLDG, doesn't increase complications and overall cost compared with LAG, and has advantages in gastrointestinal function recovery, incision length and postoperative hospital stay.

[Reconstruction following gastrectomy]

Minimally invasive surgical techniques with respect to the treatment of gastric cancer have progressed rapidly over the last few years. Especially in Asia, where the incidence of gastric cancer is ten times higher than in Europe, surgery for gastric cancer is steadily evolving, especially regarding laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures. This review first discusses the different options for reconstruction of the gastrointestinal passage after gastrectomy, ranging from Billroth procedures to the latest developments, such as the double tract reconstruction. In particular, the possibility of function-preserving partial gastrectomy, such as proximal and distal gastric resection and the corresponding reconstruction techniques are presented. The latest studies and technical developments are presented, especially with respect to laparoscopically assisted, completely laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomies.

Single-incision laparoscopic antrectomy for type I gastric neuroendocrine tumor: a case report

BACKGROUND

Type I gastric neuroendocrine tumors (GNETs) originate from hyperplasia of enterochromaffin-like (ECL) cells and are commonly detected in patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, including autoimmune gastritis. Typical treatment for type I GNETs comprises simple surveillance and/or endoscopic resection. For alleviation of hypergastrinemia resulting in ECL cell hypertrophy, antrectomy is a treatment option. Type I GNETs mostly have excellent prognosis, and if a surgical approach is chosen, the procedure must be minimally invasive. One such technique for multiple type I GNETs, minimally invasive single-incision laparoscopic antrectomy (SILA), is reported here for the first time.

CASE PRESENTATION

We performed SILA on a 46-year-old woman who developed type I GNETs caused by hypergastrinemia due to autoimmune gastritis. A Lap-Protector was inserted in a 3 cm incision at the umbilicus, and set an EZ Access equipped with two 5 mm trocars and one 12 mm trocar. Antrectomy without lymph node dissection was performed using a 5 mm forward-oblique viewing endoscope, a vessel sealing device, and linear staplers, while reconstruction was by Billroth I reconstruction. Side-to-side anastomosis was performed using a 45 mm linear stapler. The stapler entry hole was sutured intracorporeally using barbed suture material. The operation time was 140 min and blood loss was 5 ml. The patient was discharged ten days after surgery without complications. Serum gastrin level decreased to within the normal range on the day after the operation. One year after surgery, esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed pathological disappearance of all lesions of the remnant stomach.

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a minimally-invasive and tolerable technique for treatment of multiple type I GNETs. In this reported case there was good cohesiveness and effectiveness in normalizing gastrin levels and in elimination of remnant gastric lesions.

Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: Current status and future directions

Surgery is the most important and effective method for the treatment of gastric cancer. Since the first gastrectomy in the early 19th century, surgical treatment of gastric cancer has undergone more than 100 years of development. With the increasing understanding of gastric cancer and the promotion of a series of clinical trials, the concept of gastric cancer surgery has evolved from the initial "bigger is better" to today's "standardized surgery" and is developing towards individualized surgery focusing on accurate resection and quality of life. This trend has had a tremendous impact on the development of surgical treatments, such as minimally invasive surgeries, function-preserving surgeries, and the optimal extent of lymph node dissection. Understanding the development and current status of gastric cancer surgery and exploring the remaining academic controversies are goals that every gastric surgeon should constantly pursue. However, how should gastric cancer surgery develop in the future? What opportunities and challenges will we encounter? In this review, we elaborate on the development and current status of gastric cancer surgery based on a series of clinical studies and discuss the controversy in the development of gastric cancer surgery.

Risk Factors for the Severity of Complications in Minimally Invasive Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is a promising surgical method with well-known benefits, including reduced postoperative complications. However, for total gastrectomy of gastric cancers, this approach does not significantly reduce the risk of complications. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for the severity of complications associated with minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods

The study included 392 consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic total gastrectomy between 2011 and 2019. Clinicopathological and operative characteristics were assessed to determine the features related to postoperative complications after minimally invasive total gastrectomy. Binomial and multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify the risk factors for overall complications and mild and severe complications, respectively.

Results

Of 103 (26.3%) patients experiencing complications, 66 (16.8%) and 37 (9.4%) developed mild and severe complications, respectively. On multivariate multinomial regression analysis, independent predictors of severe complications included obesity (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.02−6.43; P=0.046), advanced stage (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.13−7.43; P=0.026), and more intraoperative bleeding (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02−1.06; P=0.001). Operation time was the only independent risk factor for mild complications (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.001−1.13; P=0.047).

Conclusions

The risk factors for mild and severe complications were associated with surgery, indicating surgical difficulty. Surgeons should be aware of these potential risks that are related to the severity of complications so as to reduce surgery-related complications after minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: Current status and future direction

Gastric cancer is still a major cause of death worldwide. While laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has gained evidence as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer in the distal stomach, there are still concerns regarding its application for gastric cancer in the upper stomach and advanced gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has shown to have faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, less pain, and less blood loss in many retrospective and prospective studies. The application of LG has now extended from conventional radical gastrectomy to novel approaches such as function-preserving gastrectomy and sentinel-node navigated surgery. Studies on the use of laparoscopy in treatment for stage IV gastric cancer are rare, but show that there may be some roles of LG in selected cases. With the development of new laparoscopic tools that augment human ability, the future of LG should move on from proving non-inferiority to demonstrating superiority compared to the traditional open gastrectomy.

Robotic Surgery in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Robotic surgery is expanding in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. In the field of gastrointestinal cancer, robotic surgery is performed using a robot-assisted surgery system. In this system, the robot does not operate automatically but is controlled by the surgeon. The surgery assistant robot currently used in clinical practice worldwide is the leader-follower type, including the da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical). This review describes the current state of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and discusses the future development of robotic systems in gastrointestinal surgery.

Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Surgery represents the only method for potentially curative intent for gastric cancer (GC) [...].