The importance of the proximal resection margin distance for proximal gastric adenocarcinoma: A multi-institutional study of the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative

Prognostic Relevance of the Proximal Resection Margin Distance in Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The risk for recurrence in patients with distal gastric cancer can be reduced by surgical radicality. However, dispute exists about the value of the proposed minimum proximal margin distance (PMD). Here, we assess the prognostic value of the safety distance between the proximal resection margin and the tumor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-center cohort study of patients undergoing distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (2001-2021). Cohorts were defined by adequacy of the PMD according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines (≥ 5 cm for intestinal and ≥ 8 cm for diffuse Laurén's subtypes). Overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were assessed by log-rank and multivariable Cox-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 176 patients, 70 (39.8%) had a sufficient PMD. An adequate PMD was associated with cancer of the intestinal subtype (67% vs. 45%, p = 0.010). Estimated 5-year survival was 63% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51-78] and 62% (95% CI 53-73) for adequate and inadequate PMD, respectively. Overall, an adequate PMD was not prognostic for OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48-1.38) in the multivariable analysis. However, in patients with diffuse subtype, an adequate PMD was associated with improved oncological outcomes (median OS not reached versus 131 months, p = 0.038, median TTP not reached versus 88.0 months, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Patients with diffuse gastric cancer are at greater risk to undergo resection with an inadequate PMD, which in those patients is associated with worse oncological outcomes. For the intestinal subtype, there was no prognostic association with PMD, indicating that a distal gastrectomy with partial preservation of the gastric function may also be feasible in the setting where an extensive PMD is not achievable.

Prognostic effect of microscopically negative but close resection margin in gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Microscopically positive resection margin (RM) following curative surgery has been linked to disease recurrence in gastric cancer (GC), but the impact of microscopically negative but close RM (CRM) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic implications of a CRM of ≤0.5 cm in GC patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the institutional GC database identified 1958 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for pathologically proven GC between January 2011 and December 2015. The patients were categorized into CRM (RM ≤0.5 cm) and sufficient RM (SRM, RM >0.5 cm) groups. The impact of CRM on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed compared to the SRM group.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 1264 patients with early GC (EGC, 64.6%) and 694 with advanced GC (AGC, 35.4%). Forty-four patients (2.2%) had RM of ≤0.5 cm. CRM was associated with worse RFS in AGC (5-year RFS in the CRM vs. SRM groups; 41.6% vs. 68.7%, p = 0.011); however, the effect on OS was not significant (p = 0.159). Multivariate analysis revealed that CRM was an independent prognostic factor for RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.035, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.097-3.776). In AGC, the locoregional recurrence rate was significantly higher in the CRM group than in the SRM group (15.4% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

CRM of ≤0.5 cm was a significant prognostic factor for RFS in GC patients and was associated with a significant increase in locoregional recurrence in AGC.

Adequate gross resection margin length ensuring pathologically complete resection in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

A positive resection margin (RM) is associated with poor survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). However, the adequate RM length to avoid a positive RM remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to examine the RM length required to avoid a positive RM in gastrectomy for GC.

Methods

This systematic review involved all relevant articles identified in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 2023. The incidence of a positive RM related to the RM length and the possible incidence of a positive RM estimated from the discrepancy between the gross and pathological RM length were evaluated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to quantify study quality.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 8983 patients were analyzed. Investigation of the incidence of a positive RM in relation to the RM length showed that a proximal RM length of 6 cm guaranteed a negative RM in gastrectomy. Analyses of the possible incidence of a positive RM revealed that a negative RM would be guaranteed if the proximal RM length was 6 cm in distal gastrectomy, if the esophageal resection length was 2 cm in total gastrectomy for GC without esophageal invasion and 2.5 cm in total or proximal gastrectomy for GC with esophageal invasion or esophagogastric junction cancer, and if the distal RM length was 4 cm in proximal gastrectomy for early GC.

Conclusions

The adequate RM lengths to ensure a pathologically negative RM in each type of gastrectomy for GC were herein suggested.

Total Versus Subtotal Gastrectomy for Distal Gastric Poorly Cohesive Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Gastric poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) in advanced stages has a poor prognosis. Total gastrectomy (TG) remains the common treatment for distal gastric PCC, but subtotal gastrectomy (SG) may improve quality of life without compromising outcomes. Currently, no clear recommendation on the best surgical strategy for distal PCC is available. This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years for patients with antropyloric PCC treated by total versus subtotal gastrectomy.

METHODS

A large retrospective European multicenter cohort study analyzed 2131 patients treated for gastric cancer between 2007 and 2017 by members of the French Association of Surgery (AFC). The study compared a group of patients who underwent TG with a group who underwent SG for antropyloric PCC. The primary outcomes were 5 year OS and DFS.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 269 patients: 140 (52.0%) in the TG group and 129 (48.0%) in the SG group. The baseline characteristics and pTNM stage were similar between the two groups. According to Dindo-Claven classification, the patients treated with TG had more postoperative complications than the patients treated with SG (p < 0.001): grades I to IIIa (77.1% vs 59.5%) and grades IIIb to IVb (14.4% vs 9.0%). No difference in 5-year OS was observed between TG (53.8%; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 43.2-63.3%) and SG (53.0%; 95% CI, 41.4-63.3%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.29). The same was observed for 5-year DFS: TG (46.0%; 95% CI, 35.9-55.5%) versus SG (45.3%; 95% CI, 34.3-55.6%) (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.70-1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years, SG was not associated with worse OS and DFS than TG for distal PCC. Surgical morbidity was higher after TG. Subtotal gastrectomy is a valuable option for distal PCC gastric cancer.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of the Minimal Proximal Resection Margin in Total Gastrectomy for Siewert II Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of the minimal proximal resection margin (PRM) in total gastrectomy (TG) for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

This study finally included 178 Siewert II advanced AEG patients who underwent TG from January 2017 to September 2020. According to the PRM length, patients were divided into 20-25 mm group and 30-35 mm group. Intraoperative, short-, and long-term postoperative outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The PRM of the 20-25 mm group had significantly less operation time compared with the PRM of the 30-35 mm group (P < .001), but the amount of blood loss, management of the diaphragmatic crura, and the incidence of positive resection margin were not significantly different between two groups (P > .05). In short-term postoperative outcomes, first gas-passing time, gastric-tube removal time, start time of diet, hospitalization, postoperative complications, and body weight loss were similar between two groups (P > .05). During the follow-up, the 3-year overall survival rates and the recurrence rates were not significantly different between the PRM of 20-25 mm and 30-35 mm groups (81.2% vs 83.5%, P = .695; 18.8% vs 15.5%, P = .812, respectively).

CONCLUSION

With less operation time and more preserved esophagus, the minimal PRM length of 20-25 mm could be an appropriate option in TG for patients with Siewert II advanced AEG.

Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic approaches to gastrectomy: a National Cancer Database study

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is associated with significant mortality worldwide. Radical gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy is considered the only curative option. Traditionally, these operations are associated with significant morbidity. Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and more recently robotic gastrectomy (RG) techniques have been developed to potentially decrease the perioperative morbidity. We sought to compare oncologic outcomes with laparoscopic and robotic techniques for gastrectomy.

METHODS

Utilizing the National Cancer Database we identified patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified by open, robotic or laparoscopic surgical technique. Open gastrectomy patients were excluded.

RESULTS

We identified 1,301 patients who underwent RG and 4,892 LG with median ages of 65 (20-90) and 66 (18-90) respectively, p = 0.02. The mean number of positive lymph nodes were higher in the LG 2.2 ± 4.4 vs RG 1.9 ± 3.8, p = 0.01. The R0 resections were higher in the RG at 94.5% vs 91.9% in LG, p = 0.001. Conversions to open were 7.1% in the RG and 16% in the LG group, p < 0.001. The median length of hospitalization was 8 (6-11) in both groups. There was no difference in the 30-day readmission (p = 0.65), 30-day mortality (p = 0.85) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.34) between groups. The median and overall 5-year survival was 71.3 mo and 56% in the RG and 66.1 mo and 52% in the LG, p = 0.03. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores, location of gastric cancer, histology grade, pathologic T-stage, pathologic N-stage, surgical margins, and facility volume were all predictors of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are both acceptable approaches to gastrectomy. However, conversions to open are higher and R0 resections rates are lower in the laparoscopic group. Additionally, a survival benefit is demonstrated in those undergoing robotic gastrectomy.

Impact of positive microscopic resection margins (R1) after gastrectomy in diffuse-type gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Diffuse-type gastric cancer (DTGC) is associated with poor outcome. Surgical resection margin status (R) is an important prognostic factor, but its exact impact on DTGC patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of microscopically positive margins (R1) after gastrectomy on survival and tumour recurrence in DTGC patients.

METHODS

All consecutive DTGC patients from two tertiary centers who underwent curative oncologic gastrectomy from 2005 to 2018 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) for R0 versus R1 patients. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence patterns as well as the overall survival benefit of chemotherapy in this DTGC patient cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 108 patients were analysed, 88 with R0 and 20 with R1 resection. Patients with negative lymph nodes and negative margins (pN0R0) had the best OS (median 102 months, 95% CI 1-207), whereas pN + R0 patients had better median OS than pN + R1 patients (36 months 95% CI 13-59, versus 7 months, 95% CI 1-13, p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for DFS. Perioperative chemotherapy offered a median OS of 46 months (95% CI 24-68) versus 9 months (95% CI 1-25) after upfront surgery (p = 0.022). R1 patients presented more often early recurrence (< 12 postoperative months, 30% vs 8%, p = 0.002), however, no differences were observed in recurrence location.

CONCLUSION

DTGC patients with microscopically positive margins (R1) presented poorer OS and DFS, and early tumour recurrence in the present series. R0 resection should be obtained whenever possible, even if other adverse biological features are present.

A systematic review of minimal length of lroximal margin in gastric adenocarcinoma resection

For early distal gastric cancers, a proximal margin (PM) > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

INTRODUCTION

In gastric cancer surgery, microscopic positive margin is a poor prognostic factor whereas complete resection with tumor-free margins remains a challenging issue. European guidelines recommended a macroscopic margin of 5 or even 8 cm for diffuse-type cancers to achieve R0 resection. However, it is unclear if the length of negative proximal margin (PM) could have a prognostic impact on survival. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing PM length and its prognostic impact in gastric adenocarcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for "gastric cancer" or "gastric adenocarcinoma," combined with "proximal margin," between January 1990 and June 2021. English-written studies that specified PM length were included. Survival data, in relation to PM, were extracted.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies, with a total number of 10,067 patients, met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mean length of proximal margin on the whole population varied from 2.6 to 5.29 cm. Three studies found minimal PM cut-off to improve overall survival in univariate analysis. Concerning recurrence-free survival analysis, only 2 series showed better results with PM > 2 or > 3 cm, using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent impact of PM on overall survival in 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

For early distal gastric cancers, a PM > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced or proximal tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

A Comprehensive Review of Prognostic Factors in Patients with Gastric Adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma remains associated with a poor long-term survival, despite recent therapeutical advances. In most parts of the world where systematic screening programs do not exist, diagnosis is often made at advanced stages, affecting long-term prognosis. In recent years, there is increasing evidence that a large bundle of factors, ranging from the tumor microenvironment to patient ethnicity and variations in therapeutic strategy, play an important role in patient outcome. A more thorough understanding of these multi-faceted parameters is needed in order to provide a better assessment of long-term prognosis in these patients, which probably also require the refinement of current staging systems. This study aims to review existing knowledge on the clinical, biomolecular and treatment-related parameters that have some prognostic value in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Surgery Matters: Progress in Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma has progressed significantly in the past few decades. A major milestone was the establishment of multimodal therapies for locally advanced tumours. Improvements in the technique of endoscopic resection have supplanted surgery in the early stages of many cases of gastric cancer. In cases in which an endoscopic resection is not possible, surgical limited resection procedures for the early stages of carcinoma are an equal alternative to gastrectomy in the field of oncology. Proximal gastrectomy is extensively discussed in this context. Whether proximal gastrectomy leads to a better quality of life and better nutritional well-being than total gastrectomy depends on the reconstruction chosen. The outcome cannot be conclusively assessed at present. For locally advanced stages, total or subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is now the global standard. A subtotal gastrectomy requires sufficiently long tumour-free proximal resection margins. Recent data indicate that proximal margins of at least 3 cm for tumours with an expansive growth pattern and at least 5 cm for those with an infiltrative growth pattern are sufficient. The most frequently performed reconstruction worldwide following gastrectomy is the Roux-en-Y reconstruction. However, there is evidence that pouch reconstruction is superior in terms of quality of life and nutritional well-being. Oncological gastric surgery is increasingly being performed laparoscopically. The safety and oncological equivalency were first demonstrated for early carcinomas and then for locally advanced tumours, by cohort studies and RCTs. Some studies suggest that laparoscopic procedures may be advantageous in early postoperative recovery. Robotic gastrectomy is also increasing in use. Preliminary results suggest that robotic gastrectomy may have added value in lymphadenectomy and in the early postoperative course. However, further studies are needed to substantiate these results. There is an ongoing debate about the best treatment option for gastric cancer with oligometastatic disease. Preliminary results indicate that certain patient groups could benefit from resection of the primary tumour and metastases following chemotherapy. However, the exact conditions in which patients may benefit have yet to be confirmed by ongoing trials.

Laparoscopic Function-Preserving Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer or Esophagogastric Junction Cancer: A Narrative Review

Function-preserving procedures to maintain postoperative quality of life are an important aspect of treatment for early gastric cancer. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with a small remnant stomach, namely laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LsTG), are alternative function-preserving procedures for laparoscopic total gastrectomy of early proximal gastric cancer. In LPG, esophagogastrostomy with techniques to prevent reflux and double-tract and jejunal interposition including esophagojejunostomy is usually chosen for reconstruction. The double-flap technique is currently a preferred reconstruction technique in Japan as an esophagogastrostomy approach to prevent reflux esophagitis. However, standardized reconstruction methods after LPG have not yet been established. In LsTG, preservation of the esophagogastric junction and the fundus prevents reflux and malnutrition, which may maintain quality of life. However, whether LsTG is an oncologically and nutritionally acceptable procedure compared with laparoscopic total gastrectomy or LPG is a concern. In this review, we summarize the status of reconstruction in LPG and the oncological and nutritional aspects of LsTG as a function-preserving gastrectomy for early proximal gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer.

The Role of Surgery in the Management of Gastric Cancer: State of the Art

Surgery still represents the mainstay of treatment of all stages of gastric cancer (GC). Surgical resections represent potentially curative options in the case of early GC with a low risk of node metastasis. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and indocyanine green fluorescence are novel techniques which may improve the employment of stomach-sparing procedures, ameliorating quality of life without compromising oncological radicality. Nonetheless, the diffusion of these techniques is limited in Western countries. Conversely, radical gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy and multimodal treatment represents a valid option in the case of advanced GC. Differences between Eastern and Western recommendations still exist, and the optimal multimodal strategy is still a matter of investigation. Recent chemotherapy protocols have made surgery available for patients with oligometastatic disease. In this context, intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy via HIPEC or PIPAC has emerged as an alternative weapon for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. In conclusion, the surgical management of GC is still evolving together with the multimodal strategy. It is mandatory for surgeons to be conscious of the current evolution of the surgical management of GC in the era of multidisciplinary and tailored medicine.

Impact of Surgical Margins on Overall Survival after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Validation of Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Guidelines on a Western Series

Purpose

No consensus exists on the resection extent needed to ensure oncological safety in gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). This study aims to assess the impact of margin adequacy according to Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) guidelines on overall survival (OS).

Patients and Methods

Patients who underwent surgery for stage I–III GAC at our institution between 2010 and 2017 were included. Margin adequacy according to JGCA, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines was assessed, and their predictive value on OS was evaluated with Harrell’s C-index. Patients were analyzed according to their margins’ adherence to JGCA guidelines, and a propensity score matching (PSM) was run. Indication to either total gastrectomy (TG) or distal gastrectomy (DG) according to each guideline was also assessed.

Results

A total of 279 patients were included, of whom 220 (79%) underwent DG. Adequate margins according to JGCA were obtained in 209 patients (75%). On multivariate analysis, JGCA margin adequacy was independently associated with OS, together with American Society of Anesthesiologist class, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy extent, R0 resection, and postoperative N stage. After PSM, patients with JGCA adequate margins showed better OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and local RFS than patients with JGCA inadequate margins. For 220 DG, JGCA guidelines would have recommended TG in 25 patients (11%), NCCN in 30 (14%), and ESMO in 90 (41%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Adequacy of surgical resection margins to JGCA guidelines leads to improved survival outcomes and allows for a more organ-preserving approach than Western guidelines.

Impact of Surgical Margin Status on Survival in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.

METHODS

The present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).

CONCLUSION

R1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.

Impact of resection margin status on survival in advanced N stage pancreatic cancer - a multi-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to examine the impact of microscopically tumour-infiltrated resection margins (R1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with advanced lymphonodular metastasis (pN1-pN2) on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-institutional analysis included patients undergoing surgical resection for PDAC at three tertiary university centres between 2005 and 2018. Subcohorts of patients with lymph node status pN0-N2 were stratified according to the histopathological resection status using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The OS of the entire cohort (n = 620) correlated inversely with the pN status (26 [pN0], 18 [pN1], 11.8 [pN2] months, P < 0.001) and R status (21.7 [R0], 12.5 [R1] months, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant OS difference between R0 versus R1 in cases with advanced lymphonodular metastases: 19.6 months (95% CI: 17.4-20.9) versus 13.6 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.0) for pN1 stage and 13.7 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.9) versus 10.1 months (95% CI: 7.9-19.1) for pN2, respectively. Accordingly, N stage-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that R status was a prognostic factor in pN0 cases only. Furthermore, there was no significant survival disadvantage for patients with R0 resection but circumferential resection margin invasion (≤ 1 mm; CRM+; 10.7 months) versus CRM-negative (13.7 months) cases in pN2 stages (P = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

An R1 resection is not associated with worse OS in pN2 cases. If there is evidence of advanced lymph node metastasis and a re-resection due to an R1 situation (e.g. at venous or arterial vessels) may substantially increase the perioperative risk, margin clearance in order to reach local control might be avoided with respect to the OS.

Analysis of Esophagectomy Margin Practice and Survival Implications

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine how thoracic surgeons manage intraoperative esophagectomy positive margins and how these decisions may relate to overall survival and progression-free survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A survey was sent to thoracic surgeons to understand the management of intraoperative positive esophagectomy margins. Primary data at two high-volume esophageal cancer institutions from 1994 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who had intraoperative positive frozen section margins during esophagectomy. Patient characteristics and survival data were collected and analyzed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were assessed using a Cox model.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of thoracic surgeons responding to a survey reported the utilization of frozen pathologic evaluation during esophagectomy with attempts at re-resection to achieve negative margin. Our esophagectomy database identified 94 patients with intraoperative positive margins. Of those re-resected (n = 67, 63%), 44 patients (46.8%) were converted to R0 resections. overall survival was improved for patients in the R0 group (13 months) vs R+ group (3.4 months, P = .04). Progression-free survival was also improved between the R0 group (8.6 months) and the R+ group (2.2 months, P = .03). In a multivariable analysis for progression-free survival, margin status was an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio 3.13, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

From a thoracic surgery survey, 85% of surgeons use intraoperative frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical decision making during an esophagectomy. Analyzing patients with a positive margin discovered during esophagectomy suggests that esophageal cancer patients who can undergo re-resection to a negative margin have increased progression-free survival. The final margin appears to be related to progression-free survival.

Advances in the surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer

Since Theodore Billroth and Cesar Roux perfected the methods of post-gastrectomy reconstruction in the late 19^th century, surgical management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancer has made incremental progress. The majority of patients with localized disease are treated with perioperative combination chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment or before surgical resection has improved staging accuracy and can drastically inform treatment decisions. The longstanding and contentious debate on the optimal extent of lymph node dissection for gastric cancer appears to have settled in favor of D2 dissection with the recently published 15-year follow-up of the Dutch randomized trial. Minimally invasive gastric and gastroesophageal resections are performed routinely in most centers affording faster recovery and equivalent oncologic outcomes. Pylorus-preserving distal (central) gastrectomy has emerged as a less invasive, function-preserving option for T1N0 middle-third gastric cancers, while randomized data on its oncologic adequacy are pending. Multi-visceral resections and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been utilized selectively for patients with locally advanced tumors who have demonstrated disease control on preoperative chemotherapy. This review summarizes the current standard of surgical care for gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancer as well as highlights recent and upcoming advances to the field.

Impact of surgical margin status on the survival outcome after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Generally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I² statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165110.

Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy

Objective

The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with different PM distance for GC into a prediction nomogram.

Methods

Patients who underwent radical DG from June 2004 to June 2014 at Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University were included. The first endpoints of the prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5 cm increments) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards regression was performed using the training set, and the nomogram was constructed, patients were chronologically assigned to the training set for dates from June 1, 2004 to January 30, 2012 (n=493) and to the validation set from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (n=211).

Results

Among 704 patients with pTNM stage I, pTNM stage II, T1−2, T3−4, N0, differentiated type, tumor size ≤5.0 cm, a PM of (2.1−5.0) cmvs. PM≤2.0 cm showed a statistically significant difference in DFS and OS, while a PM>5.0 cm was not associated with any further improvement in DFS and OSvs. a PM of 2.1−5.0 cm. In patients with pTNM stage III, N1, N2−3, undifferentiated type, tumor size >5.0 cm, the PM distance was not significantly correlated with DFS and OS between patients with a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm and a PM≤2 cm, or between patients with a PM >5.0 cm and a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm, so there were no significant differences across the three PM groups. In the training set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.721 and 0.735, respectively, and in the validation set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.752 and 0.751, respectively.

Conclusions

It is necessary to obtain not less than 2.0 cm of PM distance in early-stage disease, while PM distance was not associated with long-term survival in later and more aggressive stages of disease because more advanced GC is a systemic disease. Different types of patients should be considered for removal of an individualized PM distance intra-operatively. We developed a universally applicable prediction model for accurately determining the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS and OS of GC patients according to their preoperative clinicopathologic characteristics and PM distance.

Impact of proximal resection margin involvement on survival outcome in patients with proximal gastric cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for proximal resection margin involvement and its impact on survival outcome in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 488 patients who underwent potentially curative resection for proximal gastric cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival differences between patients with positive and negative resection margins were compared and prognostic factors were determined by Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

In this study, 7.6% (37/488) of patients with proximal gastric cancer had a positive proximal resection margin after postoperative histopathological examination. Positive resection margins were significantly associated with advanced tumour stage and more aggressive biological features including larger tumour size, serosal invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Serosal invasion (OR 4.543, 95% CI 2.201 to 9.380, p<0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.279, 95% CI 1.129 to 4.600, p<0.05) were independent risk factors for positive proximal resection margins. In terms of survival outcome, positive resection margins had an adverse impact on the prognosis of patients with proximal gastric cancer (median DFS: 20.7 vs 30.2 months, p<0.001). The multivariate analysis indicated that positive resection margins (HR 1.494, 95% CI 1.042 to 2.142, p=0.029), T stage (T3-T4, HR 2.264, 95% CI 1.484 to 3.454, p<0.001) and N stage (N1-N2 stage, HR 1.696, 95% CI 1.279 to 2.248, p<0.001; N3 stage, HR 2.691, 95% CI 1.967 to 3.681, p<0.001) were independent prognostic factors for patients with proximal gastric cancer.

CONCLUSION

Proximal resection margin involvement was an indicator of more aggressive tumours and an independent prognostic factor for patients with proximal gastric cancer. Aggressive efforts should be made to achieve a negative resection margin if gastric cancer was deemed to be potentially resectable.

Current surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma

The incidence of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma has shown an upward trend over the past several decades worldwide. In this article, we review previous studies and aimed to provide an update on the factors related to the surgical treatment of EGJ adenocarcinoma. The Siewert classification has implications for lymph node spread and is the most commonly used classification. Different types of EGJ cancer have different incidences of mediastinal and abdominal lymph node metastases, and different surgical approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages. Minimally invasive surgeries have been increasingly applied in clinical practice and show comparable oncologic outcomes. Endoscopic resection may be a good therapy for early EGJ cancer. Additionally, there is still a great need for well-designed, large RCTs to forward our knowledge on the surgical treatment of EGJ cancer.

What Is the Best Operation for Proximal Gastric Cancer and Distal Esophageal Cancer?

Cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) is increasing in incidence, likely as a result of rising obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease rates. The tumors that arise here share features of esophageal and gastric cancer, and are classified based on their location in relationship to the GEJ. The definition of the GEJ itself, as well as optimal resection strategy, extent of lymph node dissection, resection margin length, and reconstruction methods are still very much a subject of debate. This article summarizes the available evidence on this topic, and highlights specific areas for further research.

First endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastroesophageal junction carcinoma in a 72-year old male from Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal and gastric tumors are very lethal malignancies. Their most common histology is adenocarcinoma for more than 90% of all gastroesophageal tumors.

CASE PRESENTATION

Herein, we report a case of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastroesophageal junction carcinoma, the first of its kind to be performed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a 72-year-old patient, who was found to have a gastroesophageal junction mass extending to the cardia. Complete excision was performed via endoscopic submucosal dissection. There were no complications in the postoperative period and the patient was discharged in good condition.

DISCUSSION

Over time, the management of gastroesophageal junction carcinoma has evolved along with the surgical approach. Endoscopic submucosal dissection preserves the anatomical structures and not only leads to a better quality of life, but also decreases morbidity and mortality. The procedure shows favorable results for early-stage gastroesophageal junction carcinoma as a treatment option with excellent en bloc resection rates.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an acceptable management for T1 gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Optimal Intraoperative Assessment of Gastric Margins

OBJECTIVES

Intraoperative pathology consultation (IOC) to assess margins is frequently requested during surgery of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

We studied 110 consecutive patients undergoing gastrectomy with IOC margin assessment.

RESULTS

Gastric margins at IOC utilized the most blocks but were least often positive. In 64% of patients, the entire gastric margin was examined using average six blocks; representative sections were examined in 25% of patients using two blocks. There was no difference in patient outcome between those who had entire vs representative sections of margin examined. Gross variables showing strongest associations with positive margins were tumor size and tumor distance to margin. Tumors sized greater than 2.3 cm had significantly increased risk of positive margin, and tumor distance greater than 4.5 cm to margin was associated with negative margins.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude representative sections of the closest gastric margin are sufficient to ensure R0 resection in the majority of cases.

Surgical approaches to adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: the Siewert II conundrum

BACKGROUND

The Siewert classification system for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma has provided morphological and topographical information to help guide surgical decision-making. Evidence has shown that Siewert I and III tumors are distinct entities with differing epidemiologic and histologic characteristics and distinct patterns of disease progression, requiring different treatment. Siewert II tumors share some of the characteristics of type I and III lesions, and the surgical approach is not universally agreed upon. Appropriate surgical options include transthoracic esophagogastrectomy, transhiatal esophagectomy, and transabdominal extended total gastrectomy.

PURPOSE

A review of the available evidence of the surgical management of Siewert II tumors is presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful review of the data appear to support the fact that a satisfactory oncologic resection can be achieved via a transabdominal extended total gastrectomy with a slight advantage in terms of perioperative complications, and overall postoperative quality of life. Overall and disease-free survival compares favorably to the transthoracic approach. These results can be achieved with careful selection of patients balancing more than just the Siewert type in the decision-making but considering also preoperative T and N stages, histological type (diffuse type requiring longer margins that are not always achievable via gastrectomy), and the presence of Barrett's esophagus.

Individualized proximal margin correlates with outcomes in gastric cancers with radical gastrectomy

The length of proximal margin for gastrectomy remains controversial. The proximal margin and its relationships with clinicopathological variables and overall survival of 922 gastric cancers were retrospectively analyzed. Proximal margin was divided into four groups (0-2.0, 2.1-4.0, 4.1-6.0, and >6.0 cm). It indicated that the overall survival was improved with the increase of proximal margin. The proximal margin of 2.1-4.0 cm was associated with a better overall survival for gastric cancers with solitary-type (T1 and T2 stages, N0 stage, tumor-node-metastasis stages I and II, tumor size <5 cm, histological G1 and G2, and Bormann type I and II). Futhermore, proximal margin of 4.1-6.0 cm was associated with a better overall survival for gastric cancers with infiltrative-type (T3 and T4 stages, N1 stage, tumor-node-metastasis stage III, tumor size ⩾5 cm, histological G3 and G4, and Bormann type III and IV). Univariate analysis revealed that T stage, N stage, tumor-node-metastasis stage, histological grade, Bormann type, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 199, extent of gastrectomy, tumor location, and proximal margin were significantly associated with overall survival. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor-node-metastasis stage, histological grade, Bormann type, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 199, extent of gastrectomy, and proximal margin were independent prognostic factors for gastric cancers with radical gastrectomy. In conclusion, the proximal margin was an independent prognostic factor for gastric cancer and should be decided individually. Proximal margin of 2.1-4.0 cm and 4.1-6.0 cm were needed for patients with solitary-type and infiltrative-type, respectively.

[Pathology of the R1 classification in visceral cancer surgery]

The completeness of tumor removal is described in the residual tumor classification (R classification). The R category of a surgical specimen reflects the effects of treatment, influences further treatment decisions and is associated with patient survival. Thorough pathological examination of all resection planes, including the circumferential margin, is necessary for accurate classification.

Clinical implication of FDG uptake of bone marrow on PET/CT in gastric cancer patients with surgical resection

AIM

To determine the relationship between F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake of bone marrow (BM) on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and clinical factors and to assess the prognostic value of FDG uptake of BM in gastric carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 309 gastric cancer patients who underwent staging FDG PET/CT and curative surgical resection. FDG uptake of primary tumor was visually classified as positive or negative FDG uptake. Mean FDG uptake of BM (BM SUV) and BM-to-liver uptake ratio (BLR) were measured. The relationships of BM SUV or BLR with clinical factors were evaluated. The prognostic values of BM SUV, BLR, and other clinical factors for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 309 patients, 38 patients (12.3%) experienced cancer recurrence and 18 patients (5.8%) died. Patients with advanced gastric cancer, positive FDG uptake, and recurrence had higher values of BM SUV and BLR than those with early gastric cancer, negative FDG uptake, and no recurrence (P < 0.05). BM SUV and BLR were significantly correlated with hemoglobin level, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, multiple tumors, T stage, lymph node metastasis, tumor involvement of resection margin, and BLR were significantly associated with RFS (P < 0.05). T stage, lymph node metastasis, hemoglobin level, and BLR were significantly associated with OS (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BLR on PET/CT was an independent prognostic factor for RFS and OS in gastric cancer patients with curative surgical resection.