[Current S3 guidelines on surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma]

Current standards of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer remains the 5th most common cancer and the 3rd most common cause of cancer mortality. Most patients diagnosed with gastric cancer still have a poor prognosis due to its advanced presentation at diagnosis, even in countries with developed screening programs. Surgery is the cornerstone of the treatment for gastric cancer, often combined with perioperative chemotherapy. Lymph node dissection is a crucial component of the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. D1 lymphadenectomy is currently recommended for early stage tumors. The extent of lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer, however, is still a matter of debate between Eastern and Western surgeons. Although a D2 dissection is the current standard recommended by most guidelines, there might be a place for more limited dissections such as D1 + in selected cases. This evidence-based review will help defining the optimal lymphadenectomy for patients with gastric cancer.

Survival Advantages in Gastric Cancer Patients Receiving Preoperative SOX Regimen Chemotherapy

Objective: This study addressed whether preoperative chemotherapy (PECT) plus surgery prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with surgery plus postoperative chemotherapy (POCT) among gastric cancer (GC) patients in Northwest China. Materials and Methods: The authors included 157 GC patients confirmed histologically or by gastroscopic pathological examination treated at the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University of China between 2012 and 2018. All patients were followed up by telephone in January 2019 within a 2-week period. The endpoint was death due to GC or its complications. Results: Thirty-eight patients received PECT, 41 patients received POCT, 40 patients received surgery alone, and 38 patients received chemotherapy alone. Surgery was performed with R0 resection and subsequent extended lymph node dissection. Chemotherapy was performed with the S-1, oxaliplatin capecitabine regimen. Patients who received PECT had longer OS than those with POCT treatment (hazard ratio = 2.409, p = 0.037). The 5-year OS rate was 32.7% higher in the PECT group than in the POCT group. Conclusions: PECT was associated with better OS in GC patients and should be considered by clinicians in GC treatment, although prospective studies are needed for confirmation.

Extent of gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide and is associated with a high frequency of nodal metastasis. The value of multimodality therapy is well-established, but gastric resection and locoregional lymph node dissection are important mainstays in potentially curative therapy. However, there has been considerable regional variation in surgical approach and debate regarding the ideal extent of gastric resection, gastric reconstruction, and extent of lymphadenectomy. This chapter outlines the current evidence in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The advent of minimally invasive approaches to gastric operations is also discussed.

Prediction of Survival Outcomes Based on Preoperative Clinical Parameters in Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Few current preoperative risk assessment tools provide essential, optimized treatment for gastric cancer. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a nomogram that uses preoperative data to predict survival and risk assessments.

METHODS

A survival prediction model was constructed using data from a developmental cohort of 1251 patients with stage I to III gastric cancer who underwent curative resection between January 2005 and December 2008 at Ajou University Hospital, Korea. The model was internally validated for discrimination and calibrated using bootstrap resampling. To externally validate the model, data from a validation cohort of 2012 patients with stage I to III gastric cancer who underwent surgery at multiple centers in Korea between January 2001 and June 2006 were analyzed. Analyses included the model's discrimination index (C-index), calibration plots, and decision curve that predict overall survival.

RESULTS

Eight independent predictors, including age, sex, clinical tumor size, macroscopic features, body mass index, histology, clinical stages, and tumor location, were considered for developing the nomogram. The discrimination index was 0.816 (adjusted C-index) in the developmental cohort and 0.781 (adjusted C-index) in the external validation cohort. Additionally, in both the developmental and validation datasets, age and tumor size were significantly correlated with each other and were independent indicators for survival (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a new nomogram by using the most common and significant preoperative parameters that can help to identify high-risk patients before treatment and help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for patients with stage I to III gastric cancer.

Lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer at European specialist centres

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this project was to evaluate the current practice of D2 in Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the first part of the study, 18 European high volume gastric cancer centres completed a questionnaire, designed to evaluate their preferred lymphadenectomy in a series of clinical scenarios. Surgeon compliance with international guidelines for lymphadenectomy was evaluated. In the second part, information on 381 gastrectomies performed for primary gastric cancer by participating surgeons from January to December 2015, was retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Surgical choice in clinical scenarios was affected by tumour stage and to a lesser extent, site and histotype. In particular, in early gastric cancer with diffuse histology D2 was recommended by >70% of surgeons, while this percentage dropped to 44% in intestinal histotypes. When surgeons selected a D2 dissection, the procedure was rarely fully compliant with the Japanese guidelines. In the review of gastrectomy experience an adequate number of nodes (≥15 nodes) was retrieved in 97% after D2. The number of retrieved nodes varied with median values ranging from 17 to 35 (p < 0.001) after D2. D2/D2+ was more frequently performed in mixed (80%) and diffuse (78%) cases than in intestinal cases (69%) (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Although an adequate lymphadenectomy was achieved in almost all cases in dedicated centres, there is still variation in the number of retrieved nodes. Tumor histology largely affects surgeon's choice as regards the extent of lymphadenectomy; however, the role of histology in planning surgical procedures needs to be verified in prospective trials.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical and pathological results of gastric cancer patients: A case-control study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by radical surgery represents a treatment option for patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). This case-control study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes of GC patients who received NACT, and its impact on survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients with GC who underwent gastrectomy. A total of 45 cases with NACT were matched with consecutive 45 patients who underwent upfront gastrectomy for the following characteristics: gender, age, gastrectomy type, lymphadenectomy extent, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, histological type, cT and cN.

RESULTS

NACT group had smaller tumors (4.9 vs 6.8 cm P = .006), lower lymphatic invasion rate (40% vs 73.3%, P = .001), lower venous invasion rate (18% vs 46.7%, P = .003) and lower perineural invasion rate (35% vs 77.8%, P < .0001). The ypTNM stage was lower in patients treated with NACT (P < .001). The major postoperative complication (POC) rate was lower in NACT patients (6.7% vs 24.4%, P = .02), as was hospital length of stay (10.8 vs 17 days, P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

NACT allowed nodal and tumor downstaging. In addition, patients who underwent NACT had fewer POC and shorter length of hospital stay.

Conversion surgery for gastric cancer patients: A review

Gastric cancer (GC) is the third most common cancer-related cause of death worldwide. In locally advanced tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has recently been introduced in most international Western guidelines. For metastatic and unresectable disease, there is still debate regarding correct management and the role of surgery. The standard approach for stage IV GC is palliative chemotherapy. Over the last decade, an increasing number of M1 patients who responded to palliative regimens of induction chemotherapy have been subsequently undergone surgery with curative intent. The objective of the present review is to analyze the literature regarding this approach, known as “conversion surgery”, which has become one of the most commonly adopted therapeutic options. It is defined as a treatment aiming at an R0 resection after chemotherapy in initially unresectable tumors. The 13 retrospective studies analyzed, with a total of 411 patients treated with conversion therapy, clearly show that even if standardization of unresectable and metastatic criteria, post-chemotherapy resectability evaluation and timing of surgery has not yet been established, an R0 surgery after induction chemotherapy with partial or complete response seems to offer superior survival results than chemotherapy alone. Additional larger sample-size randomized control trials are needed to identify subgroups of well-stratified patients who could benefit from this multimodal approach.

Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgery for gastric cancer: current indications and future perspectives

Involvement of para-aortic nodes (PAN) has been detected at pathological examination in 10-25% of locally advanced gastric cancer. Based on these data of nodal diffusion, the lymphadenectomy of para-aortic stations would be desirable in locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the debate on the oncological benefit of para-aortic nodes dissection is still not solved. A review of the literature was performed and papers reporting either the rate of para-aortic nodal metastases or the long-term survival outcomes after D2+ para-aortic nodes dissection (PAND) or D3 lymphadenectomy were descriptively reported. The literature survey yielded 14 studies. Most of the papers show the outcome of series of advanced gastric cancer treated with surgery alone, while starting from 2012, 3 articles report the outcomes of D2 + PAND or D3 lymphadenectomy after preoperative chemotherapy. The rate of PAN metastases ranges between 8.5 and 28% in surgical series. Survival outcomes largely improved in series of patients treated with multimodal approach compared to those of surgery alone. In patients with clinically detected para-aortic nodal metastases, preoperative chemotherapy followed by PAND is indicated. More data are needed to clarify the indication to prophylactic PAND in the era of multimodal treatment, anyway super-extended lymphadenectomies have to be performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres.

[New S3 guideline for esophageal cancer : Important surgical aspects]

The current German S3 guideline represents the recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus based on evidence from the literature and interdisciplinary expert consensus. Esophagogastroscopy with biopsy, endosonography, and spiral CT scan of the neck, thorax, and abdomen are decisive in staging and the choice of therapy. For a curative approach, surgery, especially transthoracic esophagectomy and gastric pull-up, is the most important therapeutic option, except in the case of mucosal carcinomas or cervical squamous cell carcinomas. The significance of total minimally invasive esophageal resection or a hybrid technique is still uncertain. In category cT3 or resectable cT4 tumors, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy should be performed in squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas. Alternatively, perioperative chemotherapy can be carried out in adenocarcinoma. Palliative resections should be avoided and replaced by interventional procedures for palliation.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Is it a must or a fake?

AIM

To investigate the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) effect on the survival of patients with proper stomach cancer submitted to D2 gastrectomy.

METHODS

We proceeded to a review of the literature with PubMed, Embase, ASCO and ESMO meeting abstracts as well as computerized use of the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NAC followed by surgery (NAC + S) with surgery alone (SA) for gastric cancer (GC). The primary outcome was the overall survival rate. Secondary outcomes were the site of the primary tumor, extension of node dissection according to Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) performed in both arms, disease-specific (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates, clinical and pathological response rates and resectability rates after perioperative treatment.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing NAC + S (n = 1089) with SA (n = 973) published in the period from January 1993 - March 2017. Only 6 of these studies were well-designed, structured trials in which the type of lymph node (LN) dissection performed or at least suggested in the trial protocol was reported. Two out of three of the RCTs with D2 lymphadenectomy performed in almost all cases failed to show survival benefit in the NAC arm. In the third RCT, the survival rate was not even reported, and the primary end points were the clinical outcomes of surgery with and without NAC. In the remaining three RCTs, D2 lymph node dissection was performed in less than 50% of cases or only recommended in the “Study Treatment” protocol without any description in the results of the procedure really perfomed. In one of the two studies, the benefit of NAC was evident only for esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers. In the second study, there was no overall survival benefit of NAC. In the last trial, which documented a survival benefit for the NAC arm, the chemotherapy effect was mostly evident for EGJ cancer, and more than one-fourth of patients did not have a proper stomach cancer. Additionally, several patients did not receive resectional surgery. Furthermore, the survival rates of international reference centers that provide adequate surgery for homogeneous stomach cancer patients’ populations are even higher than the survival rates reported after NAC followed by incomplete surgery.

CONCLUSION

NAC for GC has been rapidly introduced in international western guidelines without an evidence-based medicine-related demonstration of its efficacy for a homogeneous population of patients with only stomach tumors submitted to adequate surgery following JGCA guidelines with extended (D2) LN dissection. Additional larger sample-size multicentre RCTs comparing the newer NAC regimens including molecular therapies followed by adequate extended surgery with surgery alone are needed.

Gastric cancer treatment in the world: Germany

Epidemiologically, around 15,500 persons per year contract gastric cancer with continuously decreasing incidence and a 5-year survival rate of only 30% to 35%. Contrary to the Asian countries, there are no prevention programs for gastric cancer in Germany, which leads to the disease frequently being diagnosed in locally advanced stages and predominantly being treated with multimodal therapy concepts. Complete (R0) resection is the therapy of choice for resectable gastric cancer. Special forms of gastric cancer that are limited to the mucosa can be endoscopically resected with a curative intent. Systematic D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD) plays a decisive role in the management of local advanced tumors because it significantly contributes to the reduction of tumor-related death and both local and regional relapse rates. Perioperative chemotherapy improves prognosis in the advanced stages, whereas palliative chemotherapy is normally indicated for metastatic diseases. Standardized resection procedures and the use of individualized multimodal therapy concepts have led to improvement in the 5-year survival rate.

Lymphadenectomy: how to do it?

According to the more recent European guidelines, the D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the standard for curative intent treatment of patients with gastric cancer. Although, the surgical definition of D2 dissection and its technical aspects had been learned from Eastern surgeons in the past decades, some variations in the approach to D2 lymphadenectomy by European surgeons were detectable in randomized clinical trials dealing with lymphadenectomy. Despite in more recent years an improvement in surgical quality has been reported in European series, some differences in the practice of D2 dissection are thought to persist. As, these may contribute to discrepancies in gastric cancer survival observed across European countries, the standardization of surgical quality is an urgent need to improve the outcome of gastric cancer patients in Europe. In this manuscript, we focus on the technical aspects of the D2 dissection both in open and laparoscopic gastrectomy in order to contribute to the improvement of surgical care of gastric cancer in the West.

Preoperative staging of nodal status in gastric cancer

An accurate preoperative staging of nodal status is crucial in gastric cancer, because it has a great impact on prognosis and therapeutic decision-making. Different staging methods have been evaluated for gastric cancer in order to predict nodal involvement. So far, no technique could meet the necessary requirements, which include a high detection rate of infiltrated lymph nodes and a low frequency of false-positive results. This article summarizes different staging methods used to assess lymph node status in patients with gastric cancer, evaluates the evidence, and proposes to establish new methods.

Historical assumptions of lymphadenectomy

The role of lymphadenectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer is still very much open to debate. Consequently, Japanese, European and American surgeons perform different typologies of lymphadenectomy because of the absence of randomized clinical trials confirming the superiority of extended lymphadenectomy over less invasive surgery. In Japan, D2 lymphadenectomy has been considered as the gold standard for advanced gastric carcinoma for many years. Although numerous European studies have been conducted in an attempt to find differences between D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, none has succeeded to date. The decision to wait for results attesting to the fact that D2 guarantees a better outcome than D1 resulted in a long delay in the implementation of D2 as the gold standard treatment in Europe. In the U.S., the study by Macdonald et al. established D1 lymphadenectomy followed by chemoradiotherapy as the treatment of choice for advanced cancer, whereas D2 is officially indicated as the gold standard in the most recent European guidelines [the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRGC), German, British, ESSO]. Interestingly, European guidelines for lymphadenectomy are not based on evidence-based medicine but rather on the experience of the most important centers involved in the treatment of gastric cancer.

On the road to standardization of D2 lymph node dissection in a European population of patients with gastric cancer

The amount of lymph node dissection (LD) required during surgical treatment of gastric cancer surgery has been quite controversial. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese surgeons developed a doctrine of aggressive preventive gastric cancer surgery that was based on extended (D2) LD volumes. The West has relatively lower incidence rates of gastric cancer, and in Europe and the United States the most common LD volume was D0-1. This eventually caused a scientific conflict between the Eastern and Western schools of surgical thought: Japanese surgeons determinedly used D2 LD in surgical practice, whereas European surgeons insisted on repetitive clinical trials in the European patient population. Today, however, one can observe the results of this complex evolution of views. The D2 LD is regarded as an unambiguous standard of gastric cancer surgical treatment in specialized European centers. Such a consensus of the Eastern and Western surgical schools became possible due to the longstanding scientific and practical search for methods that would help improve the results of gastric cancer surgeries using evidence-based medicine. Today, we can claim that D2 LD could improve the prognosis in European populations of patients with gastric cancer, but only when the surgical quality of LD execution is adequate.

Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council (MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recurrence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.

[Spectrum of laparoscopic surgery for gastric tumors]

Minimally invasive operative procedures are increasingly being used for treating tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become established as a standard procedure for benign tumors and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) based on current studies, the significance of MIS in the field of gastric cancer is the topic of heated debate. Until now the majority of studies and meta-analyses on gastric cancer have come from Asia and these indicate the advantages of MIS in terms of intraoperative blood loss, minor surgical complications and swifter convalescence although without any benefits in terms of long-term oncological results and quality of life. Unlike in Germany, gastric cancer in Asia with its unchanged high incidence rate, 50 % frequency of early carcinoma and predominantly distal tumor localization is treated at high-volume centres. Due to the proven marginal advantages of MIS over open resection described in the published studies no general recommendation for laparoscopic surgery of gastric cancer can currently be given.

Impact of super-extended lymphadenectomy on relapse in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

In gastric cancer the incidence of loco-regional recurrences decreases when lymphadenectomy is expanded from D1 to D2. The present study aimed at evaluating whether the pattern of recurrence in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is further modified when lymphadenectomy is expanded from D2 to D3.

METHODS

568 patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for AGC (274 D2 and 294 D3) were considered; none of them received preoperative chemotherapy. MantelHaenszel test of homogeneity was used to verify whether the relation between extension of lymphadenectomy and recurrence varied as a function of each risk factor considered. The impact of D2 and D3 on relapse was further investigated by multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence of recurrence did not significantly differ after D2 and after D3 in the whole series (45.3% vs 46.3%; p = 0.866). However, the association between recurrence and extension of lymphadenectomy was significantly affected by histology (Mantel-Haenszel test of homogeneity: p = 0.007). The risk of recurrence was higher after D3 than after D2 (45.1% vs 35.3%) in the intestinal histotype while the pattern was reversed in the mixed/diffuse histotype (48.3% vs 61.5%). This pattern was confirmed in multivariable logistic regression: the interaction between histology and extension of lymphadenectomy was highly significant (p = 0.004). In particular, cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrences was higher in the diffuse histotype after D2, while being higher in the intestinal histotype after D3.

CONCLUSIONS

D3 reverses the negative impact of diffuse histotype on relapses, especially on locoregional recurrences. Therefore D3 could be considered a valid therapeutic option in histotype-oriented tailored treatment of AGC.

Problems faced by evidence-based medicine in evaluating lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer

Gastric cancer surgical management differs between Eastern Asia and Western countries. Extended lymphadenectomy (D2) is the standard of care in Japan and South Korea since decades, while the majority of United States patients receive at most a limited lymphadenectomy (D1). United States and Northern Europe are considered the scientific leaders in medicine and evidence-based procedures are the cornerstone of their clinical practice. However, surgeons in Eastern Asia are more experienced, as there are more new cases of gastric cancer in Japan (107898 in 2012) than in the entire European Union (81592), or in South Korea (31269) than in the entire United States (21155). For quite a long time evidence-based medicine (EBM) did not solve the question whether D2 improves long-term prognosis with respect to D1. Indeed, eastern surgeons were reluctant to perform D1 even in the frame of a clinical trial, as their patients had a very good prognosis after D2. Evidence-based surgical indications provided by Western trials were questioned, as surgical procedures could not be properly standardized. In the present study we analyzed indications about the optimal extension of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer according to current scientific literature (2008-2012) and surgical guidelines. We searched PubMed for papers using the key words “lymphadenectomy or D1 or D2” AND “gastric cancer” from 2008 to 2012. Moreover, we reviewed national guidelines for gastric cancer management. The support to D2 lymphadenectomy increased progressively from 2008 to 2012: since 2010 papers supporting D2 have achieved a higher overall impact factor than the other papers. Till 2011, D2 was the procedure of choice according to experts’ opinion, while three meta-analyses found no survival advantage after D2 with respect to D1. In 2012-2013, however, two meta-analyses reported that D2 improves prognosis with respect to D1. D2 lymphadenectomy was proposed as the standard of care for advanced gastric cancer by Japanese National Guidelines since 1981 and was adopted as the standard procedure by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer since the Nineties. D2 is now indicated as the standard of surgical treatment with curative intent by the German, British and ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO guidelines. At variance American NCCN guidelines recommend a D1⁺ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection. In conclusion, D2 lymphadenectomy, originally developed by Eastern surgeons, is now becoming the procedure of choice also in the West. In gastric cancer surgery EBM is lagging behind national guidelines, rather than preceding and orienting them. To eliminate this lag, EBM should value to a larger extent Eastern Asian literature and should evaluate not only the quality of the study design but also the quality of surgical procedures.

Pathohistological classification systems in gastric cancer: Diagnostic relevance and prognostic value

Several pathohistological classification systems exist for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Many studies have investigated the correlation between the pathohistological characteristics in gastric cancer and patient characteristics, disease specific criteria and overall outcome. It is still controversial as to which classification system imparts the most reliable information, and therefore, the choice of system may vary in clinical routine. In addition to the most common classification systems, such as the Laurén and the World Health Organization (WHO) classifications, other authors have tried to characterize and classify gastric cancer based on the microscopic morphology and in reference to the clinical outcome of the patients. In more than 50 years of systematic classification of the pathohistological characteristics of gastric cancer, there is no sole classification system that is consistently used worldwide in diagnostics and research. However, several national guidelines for the treatment of gastric cancer refer to the Laurén or the WHO classifications regarding therapeutic decision-making, which underlines the importance of a reliable classification system for gastric cancer. The latest results from gastric cancer studies indicate that it might be useful to integrate DNA- and RNA-based features of gastric cancer into the classification systems to establish prognostic relevance. This article reviews the diagnostic relevance and the prognostic value of different pathohistological classification systems in gastric cancer.

Unmet needs and challenges in gastric cancer: the way forward

Although the incidence of gastric cancer has fallen steadily in developed countries over the past 50 years, outcomes in Western countries remain poor, primarily due to the advanced stage of the disease at presentation. While earlier diagnosis would help to improve outcomes for patients with gastric cancer, better understanding of the biology of the disease is also needed, along with advances in therapy. Indeed, progress in the treatment of gastric cancer has been limited, mainly because of its genetic complexity and heterogeneity. As a result, there is an urgent need to apply precision medicine to the management of the disease in order to ensure that individuals receive the most appropriate treatment. This article suggests a number of strategies that may help to accelerate progress in treating patients with gastric cancer. Incorporation of some of these approaches could help to improve the quality of life and survival for patients diagnosed with the disease. Standardisation of care across Europe through expansion of the European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA) registry - a European cancer audit that aims to improve quality and decrease variation in care across the region - may also be expected to lead to improved outcomes for those suffering from this common malignancy.

[Surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma. German multicenter observational studies]

The aim of the review is to compare the results of selected German multicenter observational studies on the surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma within the last two decades. Overall, 6,035 patients with gastric cancer who had been registered in numerous German comprehensive surgical clinics and departments in the time periods 1986-1989, January through December 2002 and 2007-2009 were enrolled in this analysis. In particular, the study aimed to investigate the most important criteria and factors with an impact on the perioperative and early postoperative outcome including the effects on oncological long-term results. In addition to the advances in diagnostic procedures and surgical techniques, the impact of multimodal therapeutic concepts which have been established particularly in the third investigation period is emphasized.

Neoadjuvant treatment for gastric cancer

Surgery is still considered to be the mainstay for the treatment of localized gastric cancer with negative margins (R0-resection) and an adequate lymph-node-dissection (D2-lymphadenectomy). Unfortunately, most cases of gastric cancer are only diagnosed at an advanced stage due to frequent recurrences after primary resection in curative intent. In order to improve prognosis after curative resection, in the recent past, patients with locally advanced tumors were subjected to a pre-, peri-, or postoperative treatment. Interestingly, postoperative chemotherapy has significantly improved survival after gastric resection in Asia, adjuvant radiochemotherapy is favored in North America and perioperative chemotherapy is considered as a treatment of choice in Europe indicating region specific approach towards the treatment. Recently there has also been growing evidence of positive outcomes of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy on patient survival. In the present article, we discuss the concepts of neoadjuvant treatment approach and provide recommendations to surgeons based on current evidence.

Neoadjuvant treatment for gastric cancer

Surgery is still considered to be the mainstay for the treatment of localized gastric cancer with negative margins (R0-resection) and an adequate lymph-node-dissection (D2-lymphadenectomy). Unfortunately, most cases of gastric cancer are only diagnosed at an advanced stage due to frequent recurrences after primary resection in curative intent. In order to improve prognosis after curative resection, in the recent past, patients with locally advanced tumors were subjected to a pre-, peri-, or postoperative treatment. Interestingly, postoperative chemotherapy has significantly improved survival after gastric resection in Asia, adjuvant radiochemotherapy is favored in North America and perioperative chemotherapy is considered as a treatment of choice in Europe indicating region specific approach towards the treatment. Recently there has also been growing evidence of positive outcomes of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy on patient survival. In the present article, we discuss the concepts of neoadjuvant treatment approach and provide recommendations to surgeons based on current evidence.

[Treatment of gastric cancer beyond current guideline: state of the art]

The majority of recommendations in the current S3 guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric carcinoma are based on good clinical practice and lack supporting randomized studies. With the development of endoscopic resection and multimodal treatment concepts, pretherapeutic tumor staging has gained in importance. However, the accuracy of present imaging modalities is still limited with a tendency towards overstaging of locally advanced tumors. Extended lymph node dissection cannot be recommended in cases with advanced lymph node involvement. In cardiac cancer retroperitoneal lymphatic spread to the left renal vein is an early event and should thus not be classified as stage IV disease. In cases of intra-abdominal gastrectomy a pouch reconstruction should be considered in cases with a good overall prognosis. Subgroup analyses indicate a differential therapeutic effect of the established perioperative chemotherapy depending on the location of the primary tumor. There is also good evidence for an additional beneficial effect of radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy.

Radiotherapy for tumors of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction--a review of its role in multimodal therapy

There is broad consensus on surgical resection being the backbone of curative therapy of gastric- and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Nevertheless, details on therapeutic approaches in addition to surgery, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy are discussed controversially; especially whether external beam radiotherapy should be applied in addition to chemotherapy and surgery is debated in both entities and differs widely between regions and centers. Early landmark trials such as the Intergroup-0116 and the MAGIC trial must be interpreted in the context of potentially insufficient lymph node resection. Despite shortcomings of both trials, benefits on overall survival by radiochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were confirmed in populations of D2-resected gastric cancer patients by Asian trials.

Recent results on junctional carcinoma patients strongly suggest a survival benefit of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in curatively resectable patients. An effect of chemotherapy in the perioperative setting as given in the MAGIC study has been confirmed by the ACCORD07 trial for junctional carcinomas; however both the studies by Stahl et al. and the excellent outcome in the CROSS trial as compared to all other therapeutic approaches indicate a superiority of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy as compared to perioperative chemotherapy in junctional carcinoma patients. Surgery alone without neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy is considered suboptimal in patients with locally advanced disease.

In gastric carcinoma patients, perioperative chemotherapy has not been compared to adjuvant radiochemotherapy in a randomized setting. Nevertheless, the results of the recently published ARTIST trial and the Chinese data by Zhu and coworkers, indicate a superiority of adjuvant radiochemotherapy as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of disease free survival in Asian patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. The ongoing CRITICS trial is supposed to provide reliable conclusions about which therapy should be preferred in Western patients with gastric carcinoma. If radiotherapy is performed, modern approaches such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image guidance should be applied, as these methods reduce dose to organs at risk and provide a more homogenous coverage of planning target volumes.

[Surgery of gastric cancer in a medium volume center]

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate prognostic factors for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer in a medium volume center. The investigation focused in particular on morbidity and mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2005 to August 2011 a total of 74 patients with gastric cancer were surgically treated in our medium volume center. The study of these patients included morbidity, mortality, UICC (International Union Against Cancer) stage, Laurén classification, surgical therapy procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and duration of surgery.

RESULTS

After surgery 11 patients suffered from complications with a morbidity of 14.9% and a mortality of 1.4% (n=1). No significant differences could be detected during the study period.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to other studies the morbidity and mortality rates signify similar to better data than complications of high volume centers which might be due to the small group of surgeons who are specialized in gastric surgery.