Resection line involvement after gastric cancer surgery: clinical outcome in nonsurgically retreated patients

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.

Borrmann Type IV Gastric Cancer: Computed Tomography Features and Corresponding Pathological Findings

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyze the association between computed tomography (CT) features and the corresponding pathological findings in Borrmann type IV (BT-4) gastric cancers and explore the pathological basis of the characteristic CT features.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 84 patients with BT-4 gastric cancers who underwent contrast-enhanced CT and surgical resection. Preoperative CT features were evaluated, including the major location, range, circumferential invasion, perigastric fat infiltration, enlarged lymph nodes, layered enhancement, degree of enhancement, and peak enhanced phase. Postoperative pathological findings were also recorded. Differences in CT features according to different World Health Organization types, surgical margin, adjacent organ invasion, and peritoneal status were assessed using the χ 2 or Fisher exact test (n < 5).

RESULTS

The most common World Health Organization type of BT-4 gastric cancer was poorly cohesive carcinoma (65.5%), which tended to show circumferential invasion, fewer enlarged lymph nodes, and layered enhancement. Although 82 patients with BT-4 gastric cancer (97.6%) had positive lymph nodes, only 26 (31.0%) had enlarged lymph nodes. Lesions originating from the gastroesophageal junction had a higher rate of positive margins ( P < 0.05). Adjacent organ invasion was more likely to occur in lesions with perigastric fat infiltration ( P < 0.05). Patients with circumferential invasion tended to show peritoneal metastasis ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristic CT features of BT-4 gastric cancer may be attributed to the corresponding pathological findings. Recognizing the association between CT features and pathological findings may help evaluate the aggressiveness of BT-4 gastric cancers.

Oncological impact of unexpected horizontal tumor spread in gastric cancer that requires total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer often exhibits discrepancies between the gross and pathological tumor boundaries, and the degree of discrepancy may be a tumor characteristic. However, whether these discrepancies influence oncological outcomes remains unclear.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2005 to 2018 were collected. A new parameter, ΔPM, which corresponds to the length of the discrepancy between the gross and pathological proximal boundaries, was calculated and the patients were divided into two groups: patients with long ΔPM and those with short ΔPM. Oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A length of 8 mm was determined as the cutoff value for long or short ΔPM. Tumor size, growth pattern, pathological type, depth, and esophageal invasion were associated with ΔPM > 8 mm. Overall survival of the ΔPM > 8 mm group was significantly worse than that of the ΔPM ≤ 8 mm group (5-year overall survival: 58% vs 78%; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that ΔPM > 8 mm was an independent risk factor for poor survival and peritoneal metastasis. The likelihood ratio test revealed a significant interaction between pT status and ΔPM (p = 0.0007). Circumferential involvement and gross esophageal invasion were poorer survival factors in the ΔPM > 8 mm group.

CONCLUSIONS

ΔPM > 8 mm is related to several clinicopathological characteristics and is an independent risk factor for poorer survival and peritoneal metastasis but not local recurrence. ΔPM > 8 mm combined with circumferential involvement or esophageal invasion is associated with relatively poor survival outcomes.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margin status as a quality indicator in gastric cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

Positive pathologic margins following gastric cancer (GC) resection carries a poor prognosis. We evaluated intraoperative frozen section (IFS) analysis of resection margins (RMs) as a quality indicator in GC surgery.

METHODS

Patients referred to a provincial cancer agency with surgically resected non-metastatic GC between 2004 and 2012 were included. Associations between IFS analysis, other baseline characteristics, RMs, and overall survival (OS) were assessed using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analyses, and Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Among 377 patients, median age was 67 years, 68% were male, and 16% had +RMs. Thirty-four percent of patients underwent IFS analysis, which protected against +RMs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.73, p = 0.006) and improved OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.98, p = 0.037). OS following re-resection of IFS positive patients was similar to IFS negative patients (69 vs. 54 months, p = 0.317). Stage III disease (OR: 12.8, 95% CI: 3.00-55.0, p = 0.001) and gastroesophageal junction tumors (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.05-4.78, p = 0.036) predicted +RMs. Stage III disease led to worse OS (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.92-4.34, p < 0.001) while intestinal histology improved OS (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.90, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

IFS analysis reduce +RMs and improve OS and should be incorporated in curative intent GC surgery for patients with locally advanced GC.

Can We Reboot the Role of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Treatment for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis?: A Retrospective Cohort Study Regarding Minimally Invasive Surgery Conjoined with Intraperitoneal plus Systemic Chemotherapy

Background: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is the most common form of metastasis in gastric cancer (GC) and is related with a poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities including systemic chemotherapy and intraperitoneal chemotherapy have been studied and adopted in treatment of GC patients with PC. Nevertheless, few studies have reported the comparison of the oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy and conventional chemotherapy for GC with PC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 74 patients who had been diagnosed as GC with PC via either intra-abdominal exploration or abdominopelvic computed tomography between January 2011 and April 2021. After performing propensity score-matching for this retrospective data, we compared the outcomes of 26 patients who underwent MIS followed by IP combined systemic chemotherapy (MIS-IP group) and 26 patients who underwent systemic chemotherapy only (SC-only group). Results: The 2-year progression free survival rate of the MIS-IP group was significantly higher than the SC-only groups (36.4% and 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.010). In multivariate analysis to detect relevant factors on PFS, IP chemotherapy (HR 0.213; p < 0.001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (HR 3.689; p = 0.002), and the amount of ascites (p = 0.011) were significant prognostic factors. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the therapeutic potential of MIS conjoined IP plus systemic chemotherapy for GC patients with PC. MIS conjoined by IP plus systemic chemotherapy can be adopted as a treatment option to reboot the role of IP chemotherapy in GC patients with PC.

Minimum Esophageal Resection Length to Ensure Negative Proximal Margin in Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Objective

To identify the minimum length of esophageal resection to ensure a pathologically negative proximal margin (PM) in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Background

In total gastrectomy, a certain esophageal length is resected to obtain a pathologically negative PM because of the possibility of unexpected pathological esophageal invasion. However, a recommendation regarding the esophageal transection site in total gastrectomy has not been established.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2005 to 2018 were collected. We evaluated the length of unexpected pathological esophageal invasion (esophageal ΔPM) in each type of disease and each location of the gross proximal tumor boundary (PB) using the length between the PB and the esophagogastric junction (PB-EGJ length).

Results

Of the 1005 patients eligible for this study, 277, 196, and 532 had cT1, cT2-4 expansive (Exp), and cT2-4 infiltrative (Inf) growth patterns, respectively. In cT1 and Exp, no unexpected pathological esophageal invasion occurred when the PB-EGJ length was >1 cm, whereas pathological esophageal invasion occurred in 20.0% of cT1 and 32.7% of Exp when the PB-EGJ length was ≤1 cm. The esophageal ΔPM was <1 cm. In Inf, no unexpected pathological esophageal invasion occurred when the PB-EGJ length was >3 cm, whereas pathological esophageal invasion occurred in 17.4% of patients when the PB-EGJ length was ≤3 cm. The esophageal ΔPM was <2 cm.

Conclusions

New recommendations regarding the esophageal resection length required to ensure a pathologically negative PM in total gastrectomy are herein proposed.

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.

Short- and long-term oncological outcomes of totally laparoscopic gastrectomy versus laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), which involves a complete intracorporeal gastric transection and the creation of an anastomosis, has been gradually adopted. However, a potential limitation of intracorporeal transection is the lack of tactile feedback, and whether this limitation influences oncological outcomes is unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and long-term oncological safety of TLG using endoscopy-guided intracorporeal gastric transection for clinical stage (cStage) I gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1875 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for cStage I gastric cancer between January 2007 and March 2015 were enrolled in this study. Marking clips were preoperatively placed and a transection line was determined by perceiving it tactually in laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) or endoscopically in TLG. After propensity score matching, 1366 patients (683 each for LAG and TLG groups) were selected to primarily test the non-inferiority of TLG to that of LAG for relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched population, the 5-year RFS rates of the LAG and TLG groups were 94.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.2-95.8%), and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8-96.9%), respectively. The hazard ratio (TLG/LAG) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.48-1.24, P for non-inferiority < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the recurrence profiles. The incidence of the remnant of marking clips or tumor tissue did not differ (LAG: 1.0% vs. TLG: 1.9%, P = 0.177).

CONCLUSIONS

TLG using preoperative markings and intraoperative endoscopic guidance provides cStage I gastric cancer patients with comparable oncological outcomes to the conventional method.

Prognostic impact of a microscopic positive margin in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of a multi‑institutional dataset

PURPOSE

We analyzed the effect of a microscopic positive margin on survival outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer METHODS: We analyzed a multi-institutional dataset to study patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent between 2010 and 2014. We used propensity score matching to strictly balance the patients' oncological features, backgrounds, and postoperative treatment to compare the survival outcomes of those with microscopic positive margins and those with negative margins.

RESULTS

Among 3029 patients, 32 (1.1%) had positive margins. After matching, we enrolled 128 patients in this retrospective analysis: 32 with a positive margin and 96 with a negative margin. The recurrence-free survival of the positive-margin group was significantly shorter than that of the negative-margin group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.63, p = 0.0485). Consistent results were observed for patients with pStages I-III disease (HR, 1.65, p = 0.0835), whereas the survival curves overlapped in those with pStage IV disease (HR, 1.29, p = 0.5934). The prevalence of overall recurrence in the positive-margin group was higher than that in the negative-margin group (75% vs 58%, p = 0.0917). This trend was consistent with locoregional recurrence (9% vs 3%) and distant recurrence (69% vs 55%).

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of patients after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer was worse in those with microscopic positive margins than in those with negative margins.

Clinical Significance of Intra-operative Gastroscopy for Tumor Localization in Totally Laparoscopic Partial Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Tumor localization during totally laparoscopic gastrectomy is challenging owing to the invisibility of tumors on the serosal surface. We aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of intra-operative gastroscopy in totally laparoscopic partial gastrectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed 1084 gastric cancer patients who underwent either intra- or extracorporeal partial gastrectomy between 2014 and 2018. The intracorporeal group with intra-operative gastroscopy (intra-operative gastroscopy group, n = 187), the intracorporeal group without intra-operative gastroscopy (non-intra-operative gastroscopy group, n = 267), and the extracorporeal group (n = 630) were evaluated for the adequacy of surgical resection margins. We assessed whether total gastrectomy could be avoided according to the performance of intra-operative gastroscopy if the tumor was located within 3-5 cm away from the gastroesophageal junction.

RESULTS

The proximal margin positivity was lesser in the intra-operative gastroscopy group than in the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (0% versus 2.2%; P = 0.045) but similar to that in the extracorporeal group (0% versus 0.6%; P = 0.579). The number of cases with proximal resection margins < 1 cm was lower in the intra-operative gastroscopy group than in the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (3.7% versus 9.4%; P = 0.025) but comparable with that in the extracorporeal group (3.7% versus 4.1%; P = 0.815). Among 94 patients with lesions located within 3-5 cm apart from the gastroesophageal junction, the intra-operative gastroscopy group (n = 47) had fewer patients who underwent total gastrectomy than the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (n = 47) (12.8% versus 44.7%; P = 0.001). Intra-operative gastroscopy was the only independent factor that prevented total gastrectomy (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative gastroscopy can provide margin safety during intracorporeal partial gastrectomy, avoiding unnecessary total gastrectomy.

Isolated brachioradialis metastasis of gastric adenocarcinoma after R0 resection

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with an incidence of 6.72 per 100,000 people. Thirty-two percent of gastric cancer patients will live 5 years after diagnosis. Single-site metastasis is noted in 26% of patients with gastric cancer, most commonly in the liver (48%), peritoneum (32%), lung (15%), and bone (12%). Here, a case is presented in which a single skeletal muscle metastasis appeared after appropriate resection and treatment.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old man underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a multivisceral en bloc R0 resection. Final pathology showed no evidence of lymph node metastasis with 31 negative lymph nodes. Four months postoperatively, the patient was found to have a rapidly growing biopsy-proven extremity soft tissue gastric metastasis within the brachioradialis muscle. He subsequently underwent metastasectomy and immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This case is a rare example of an isolated extremity metastasis of gastric adenocarcinoma in the setting of an R0 resection of the primary tumor and negative nodal disease on final pathology, suggestive of hematogenous spread. We review the biology, workup, and management of gastric cancer and highlight new advancements in the treatment of this aggressive cancer.

Risk factors analysis and stratification for microscopically positive resection margin in gastric cancer patients

Background

Cancer cells are often found postoperatively at surgical resection margins (RM) in patients with gastric cancer because of submucosal infiltration or hesitation to secure adequate RM. This study was designed to evaluate risk factors for microscopic positive RM and to clarify which patients should undergo intraoperative frozen section diagnosis (IFSD).

Methods

Patients who underwent R0/1 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2018 in a single cancer center in Japan were studied. We divided the patients into a positive RM group and negative RM group according to the results of definitive histopathological examinations. We performed multivariate analysis to analyze risk factors for positive RM by and used the identified risk factors to risk stratify the patients.

Results

A total of 2757 patients were studied, including 49 (1.8%) in the positive RM group. The risk factors significantly associated with positive RM were remnant gastric cancer (odds ratio [OR] 4.7), esophageal invasion (OR 6.3), tumor size ≥80 mm (OR 3.9), and a histopathological diagnosis of undifferentiated type (OR 3.6), macroscopic type 4 (OR 3.7), or pT4 disease (OR 4.6). On risk stratification analysis, the incidence of positive RM was 0.1% without any risk factors, increasing to 0.4% with one risk factor, 3.1% with two risk factors, 5.3% with three risk factors, 21.3% with four risk factors, and 85.7% with five risk factors.

Conclusions

The risk of macroscopically positive RM increased in patients who have risk factors. IFSD should be performed in patients who have four or more risk factors.

Impact of adjuvant therapy in patients with a microscopically positive margin after resection for gastric and esophageal cancers

Background

A microscopically positive (R1) resection margin following resection for gastric and esophageal cancers has been documented to be a poor prognostic factor. The optimal strategy and impact of different modalities of adjuvant treatment for an R1 resection margin remain unclear.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for patients with gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) from 2006-2016. Electronic medical records of all patients with an R1 resection margin were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to analyze recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with stage and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates in the multivariate analysis.

Results

We identified 69 gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a R1 resection. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was used in 13% of patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 12%, surgery alone in 75%. Margins involved included proximal in 30%, distal in 14%, radial in 52% and multiple margins in 3% of patients. Pathological staging showed 3% with stage I disease, 20% stage II and 74% stage III. Adjuvant therapy was given in 52% of R1 pts (28% CRT, 20% chemotherapy alone, 3% radiation alone, 1% reoperation). Median RFS was 14.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-17.2]. The site of first recurrence was 72% distant, 12% mixed, 16% locoregional alone. Median OS was 34.5 months (95% CI, 23.3-57.9) for all patients. There was no significant difference in RFS (adjusted P=0.26) or OS (adjusted P=0.83) comparing modality of adjuvant therapy.

Conclusions

Most patients with positive margins after resection for gastric and esophageal cancer had advanced pathologic stage and prognosis was poor. Our study did not find improved RFS or OS with adjuvant treatment and only one patient had reresection. The main failure pattern was distant recurrence, suggesting that patients being considered for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) should be carefully selected. Further studies are required to determine factors to select patients with good prognosis despite a positive margin, or those who may benefit from adjuvant treatment.

State of the art for gastric signet ring cell carcinoma: from classification, prognosis, and genomic characteristics to specified treatments

Gastric cancer (GC) is responsible for 9% of cancer deaths worldwide. Over 950,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, and about 90% of them are in advanced stage, requiring chemotherapy. In Europe there has been research based on pre- and postoperative chemotherapy treatment, using 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine, and docetaxel. Chemotherapy significantly impairs the quality of life of patients; however, the final effects are not always satisfactory. There is scientific evidence that gastric mucus tumors and signet ring cell carcinomas have a pattern of specific signatures, that distinguish them from other gastric cancer subtypes, and may be associated with a poor response to systematic treatment. Signet ring cell carcinoma is less chemosensitive than others, and the increase in the percentage of signet ring cells correlates with resistance to chemotherapy. Perioperative chemotherapy in advanced signet ring cell carcinomas is an independent factor of poor prognosis and survival, which is explained by the toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment. Therefore, curative surgical resection enhanced by standardized lymphadenectomy remains the recommended gold standard in GC therapy. According to presented studies, early detection and aggressive treatments for this subtype of GC is a reasonable approach. This review paper is mostly addressed to physicians who are interested in updating to the state of the art concerning different subtypes of gastric carcinoma.

Role of preoperative endoscopic clipping in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

In this study, we evaluate the usefulness of preoperative endoscopic clipping for early gastric cancer (EGC) localization in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.We retrospectively screened all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for EGC by 1 surgeon at Chungnam National University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2016. Patients who underwent combined surgery and patients who had tumors at the lower third of the stomach were excluded. Endoscopic clipping was performed prior to surgery by specialized endoscopists. During the operation, endoscopic metal clips were found using surgical devices, and laparoscopic vessel clips were attached on the presumed site; thereafter, intraoperative radiographs were obtained for confirmation.We analyzed a total of 196 patients; of them, 101 were classified into the clipping group (CG) and 95 into the non clipping group (NCG). The 2 groups were comparable regarding their demographic characteristics. The CG showed less additional resection (2 of 101 patients [2.0%] vs 9 of 95 patients [9.4%], P = .021) and better outcomes in terms of the operation time (P = .000), duration of hospital stay (P = .036), and postoperative atelectasis (P = .001) than the NCG.Preoperative endoscopic clipping was helpful in determining the exact resection margin in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for EGC.

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.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy for R1 resected gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and adjuvant chemotherapy (ChT) on the survival of locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) patients treated with R1 resection.

METHODS

The patients with LAGC and microscopically positive margins after a potentially curative gastrectomy in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Centre were retrospectively identified. The patients who were referred to our hospital for adjuvant CRT after an R1 resection elsewhere were also included. The patients were divided into either the CRT group or ChT group according to the treatment strategy. We, then, examined the patient survival results and patterns of recurrence for each group.

RESULTS

There were 114 LAGC patients treated with an R1 resection identified (CRT, n = 33; ChT, n = 81). The baseline characteristics between the two groups were not different. The estimated 3 year recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the CRT and ChT groups were 45.1% vs 31.8% (p = 0.09) and 49.6% vs 39.4% (p = 0.20), respectively. The results indicated that only nodal status was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio 4.04, 95% confidence interval 2.06-7.93). The risk of locoregional recurrence was increased in the ChT group. The subgroup analysis revealed that patients with pN0-2 GC showed a better recurrence-free survival due to adjuvant CRT (hazard ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.90; p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant CRT improves locoregional control and may benefit patients with pN0-2 GC after R1 resection. The nodal status may be the most important predictor for patient selection. Advances in knowledge: Nodal status may be the most important predictor for patient selection. Compared with adjuvant ChT, LAGC patients with pN0-2 disease may further benefit from additional radiotherapy after R1 resection.

The Role of Microsatellite Instability in Positive Margin Gastric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

A positive resection margin (RM+) is acknowledged as a poor prognostic factor after gastrectomy. Microsatellite instability (MSI-H) gastric cancer has been identified as a subgroup of gastric cancer that may be associated with an improved prognosis. The aim of the study was an analysis of MSI status on patients with margin involvement after gastrectomy and examination of the association between MSI, margin status, and survival outcomes.

METHODS

From a large prospectively annotated surgical database we collected clinicopathological and survival data on patients who had undergone a potentially curative resection for gastric cancer. MSI status was assessed using a standard 5-marker quasi-monomorphic mononucleotide repeat panel. Patients who were R+ and either microsatellite stable (MSS) or MSI-H were identified and clinicopathological characteristics and disease specific survival was compared.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eighty-six patients were identified; 102 (26.4%) cancers were MSI-H. The proportion of R+ resections was not significantly different in MSS and MSI-H groups. For MSS patients 3-, 5-, and 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 9.1%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; for patients with MSI-H R+ tumors these were 38.5%, 30.8%, and 15.4%, respectively. In Cox analysis MSI-H, female gender, and T ≥3 were significantly associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MSI-H gastric cancer may have long-term survival despite R+ margin status. The molecular division of gastric cancer may be an important step in identifying possible tailored surgical treatments corresponding to clinical and pathological factors.

Stomach resection with intraoperative fluoroscopy in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Background:

In Japan, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is common for early gastric cancer. Formerly, we used to verify the location of the marking clip to decide the proximal incisional line with our hand, through a small epigastric incision. In 2015, we introduced intracorporeal reconstruction and started to decide the incisional line using intraoperative fluoroscopy. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intraoperative fluoroscopy in LDG.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 19 patients were included in this retrospective observational study. On the day before operation, we endoscopically clipped several points located 2 cm proximal to the tumour edge to cover about half of the tumour. After lymph node dissection, we incised the stomach with an endoscopic linear stapling device, including the previously placed clips, guided by intraoperative fluoroscopy. Reconstruction was performed in all patients who underwent Billroth I and Roux-en-Y procedures.

Results:

No complications were observed during pre-operative endoscopic clipping or intraoperatively. On pathological examination, all resected specimens had negative margins, and the mean distance from the tumour edge was 28.5 ± 16.5 (13–60) mm.

Conclusion:

Stomach resection with intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance was safe and effective.

Risk factor analysis for involvement of resection margins in gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer: an Italian multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Resection margin (RM) involvement is associated with negative prognosis after gastrectomy. Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) analysis allows radical resection to be achieved in a single operation but is time-consuming and resource-consuming. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors associated with RM involvement to identify patients who would benefit from IFS analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer from 2000 to 2014 in six Italian hospitals. RM status was assessed by IFS analysis and/or definitive histopathology examination. A set of 21 potential risk factors were compared in a multivariate analysis between patients with positive RMs on IFS analysis or definitive histopathology examination and a control cohort of similar patients with negative RMs, with the samples stratified into three subgroups (T1, T2-T4 Lauren intestinal pattern, T2-T4 Lauren diffuse/mixed pattern).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients had positive RMs. Survival was significantly worse in positive RM patients than in negative RM patients (89.5 months vs 28.9 months). Multivariate analysis showed that in T1 cancers a margin distance of less than 2 cm is a risk factor for RM involvement (odds ratio 15.7), in T2-T4 intestinal pattern cancers, serosa invasion (odds ratio 6.0), EGJ location (odds ratio 4.1), and a margin distance of less than 3 cm (odds ratio 4.0) are independent risk factors, and in T2-T4 diffuse/mixed pattern cancers, lymphatic infiltration (odds ratio 4.2), tumor diameter greater than 4 cm (odds ratio 3.5), EGJ location (odds ratio 2.8), and serosa invasion (odds ratio 2.2) are independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after gastrectomy is negatively affected by positive RMs. IFS analysis should be routinely used in patients with a high risk of positive RMs, especially in diffuse pattern cancers.

Report from the 17th Annual Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference; Edmonton, Alberta; 11-12 September 2015

The 17th annual Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference (wcgccc) was held in Edmonton, Alberta, 11-12 September 2015. The wcgccc is an interactive multidisciplinary conference attended by health care professionals from across Western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) who are involved in the care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists; pathologists; radiologists; and allied health care professionals participated in presentation and discussion sessions for the purposes of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses current issues in the management of gastric cancer.

Comparison of survival outcomes between transthoracic and transabdominal surgical approaches in patients with Siewert-II/III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: a single-institution retrospective cohort study

Objective

To compare the survival outcomes of transabdominal (TA) and transthoracic (TT) surgical approaches in patients with Siewert-II/III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in patients with Siewert-II/III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma who underwent either TT or TA operations in the West China Hospital between January 2006 and December 2009.

Results

A total of 308 patients (109 in the TT and 199 in the TA groups) were included in this study with a follow-up rate of 87.3%. The median (P25, P75) number of harvested perigastric lymph nodes was 8 (5, 10) in the TT group and 23 (16, 34) in the TA group (P<0.001), and the number of positive perigastric lymph nodes was 2 (0, 5) in the TT group and 3 (1, 8) in the TA group (P<0.004). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 36% in the TT group and 51% in the TA group (P=0.005). Subgroup analysis by Siewert classification showed that 5-year OS rates for patients with Siewert II tumors were 38% and 48% in TT and TA groups, respectively (P=0.134), whereas the 5-year OS rate for patients with Siewert III tumors was significantly lower in the TT group than that in the TA group (33% vs. 53%; P=0.010). Multivariate analysis indicated that N2 and N3 stages, R1/R2 resection and a TT surgical approach were prognostic factors for poor OS.

Conclusions

Improved perigastric lymph node dissection may be the main reason for better survival outcomes observed with a TA gastrectomy approach than with TT gastrectomy for Siewert III tumor patients.

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

BACKGROUND

A 5 cm margin is advocated for distal gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). The optimal proximal resection margin (PM) length for proximal GAC is not established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative-intent resection for proximal GAC from 2000 to 2012 at 7 centers in the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative were included. PM length was sequentially dichotomized and analyzed at 0.5 cm increments (0.5-6.5 cm). Outcomes after negative margin (R0) and positive microscopic margin (R1) resections were compared. Primary endpoints were local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

All patients (n = 162) had R0 distal margins. 151 (93.2%) had an R0-PM with mean length of 2.6 cm (median:1.7 cm; range:0.1-15 cm). A greater PM distance was not associated with LR or OS. An R1-PM was associated with higher N-stage (N3:73% vs. 26%; P = 0.007) and increased LR (HR6.1; P = 0.009) but not associated with decreased OS. On multivariate analysis, an R1-PM was also not independently associated with LR.

CONCLUSIONS

For resection of proximal gastric adenocarcinoma, proximal margin length is not associated with local recurrence or overall survival. An R1 margin is associated with advanced N-stage but is not independently associated with recurrence or survival. When performing resection of proximal gastric adenocarcinoma, efforts to achieve a specific margin distance, especially if it necessitates an esophagectomy, should be abandoned.

Is it time to abandon the 5-cm margin rule during resection of distal gastric adenocarcinoma? A multi-institution study of the U.S. Gastric Cancer Collaborative

BACKGROUND

A proximal margin distance of 5 cm is advocated for resection of gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). We assessed the prognostic value of proximal margin (PM) distance on survival outcomes after resection of distal GAC.

METHODS

All patients who underwent resection of distal GAC (antrum/body) from 2000 to 2012 at seven institutions of the U.S. Gastric Cancer Collaborative were included. Patients with positive distal margins or macroscopic residual disease were excluded. The prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5-cm increments) on overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 465 patients underwent resection of distal GAC. Of these, 435 had R0 resections; 30 patients had a positive PM. 143 patients had stage I, and 322 had stage II-III tumors. Median follow-up was 44 months. Average PM distance was 4.8 cm. Median OS for patients with PM of 3.1-5.0 cm (n = 110) was superior to patients with PM ≤ 3.0 cm (n = 176) (48.1 vs. 29.3 months; p = 0.01), while a margin >5.0 cm (n = 179) offered equivalent survival to PM 3.1-5.0 cm (50.6 months, p = 0.72). The prognostic value of margin distance was stage specific. On multivariate analysis of stage I patients, PM 3.1-5.0 cm remained associated with improved OS [hazard ratio (HR), 0.16; 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI), 0.04-0.60; p = 0.01]. In stage II-III, neither PM 3.1-5.0 cm nor PM > 5.0 cm was significantly associated with OS; OS was dictated by T stage and nodal involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognostic value of proximal margin distance after resection of distal gastric cancer appears stage specific. In stage I, a 3.1- to 5.0-cm proximal margin is associated with the same improved OS as a > 5.0-cm margin. In stage II-III disease, other adverse pathologic factors more strongly impact survival than proximal margin distance.

Subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Although a steady decline in the incidence and mortality rates of gastric carcinoma has been observed in the last century worldwide, the absolute number of new cases/year is increasing because of the aging of the population. So far, surgical resection with curative intent has been the only treatment providing hope for cure; therefore, gastric cancer surgery has become a specialized field in digestive surgery. Gastrectomy with lymph node (LN) dissection for cancer patients remains a challenging procedure which requires skilled, well-trained surgeons who are very familiar with the fast-evolving oncological principles of gastric cancer surgery. As a matter of fact, the extent of gastric resection and LN dissection depends on the size of the disease and gastric cancer surgery has become a patient and “disease-tailored” surgery, ranging from endoscopic resection to laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy and conventional extended multivisceral resections. LN metastases are the most important prognostic factor in patients that undergo curative resection. LN dissection remains the most challenging part of the operation due to the location of LN stations around major retroperitoneal vessels and adjacent organs, which are not routinely included in the resected specimen and need to be preserved in order to avoid dangerous intra- and postoperative complications. Hence, the surgeon is the most important non-TMN prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Subtotal gastrectomy is the treatment of choice for middle and distal-third gastric cancer as it provides similar survival rates and better functional outcome compared to total gastrectomy, especially in early-stage disease with favorable prognosis. Nonetheless, the resection range for middle-third gastric cancer cases and the extent of LN dissection at early stages remains controversial. Due to the necessity of a more extended procedure at advanced stages and the trend for more conservative treatments in early gastric cancer, the indication for conventional subtotal gastrectomy depends on multiple variables. This review aims to clarify and define the actual landmarks of this procedure and the role it plays compared to the whole range of new and old treatment methods.

Does adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improve the prognosis of gastric cancer after an r1 resection? Results from a dutch cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival of non-metastatic gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection.

METHODS

We compared the survival of patients after an R1 gastric cancer resection from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry who did not receive adjuvant CRT (no-CRT group) with the survival of resected patients who had been treated with adjuvant CRT (CRT group) at our institute. Patients who had a resection between 2002 and 2011 were included. CRT consisted of radiotherapy (45 Gy) combined with concurrent cisplatin- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The impact of CRT treatment on overall survival was assessed using multivariable Cox regression and stratified propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

A series of 409 gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection were studied (no-CRT, N = 369; CRT, N = 40). In the no-CRT group, median age was higher (70 vs. 57 years; p < 0.001) and the percentage of patients with diffuse-type tumors was lower (43 vs. 80 %; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in pathological T- and N-classification. There was a significant difference in median overall survival between the no-CRT and CRT group (13 vs. 24 months; p = 0.003). In a multivariable analysis, adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.54; 95 % confidence interval 0.35-0.84). This effect of CRT was further supported by propensity score analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant CRT was associated with an improved survival in patients who had undergone an R1 resection for gastric cancer.

Utility of the proximal margin frozen section for resection of gastric adenocarcinoma: a 7-Institution Study of the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative

BACKGROUND

The proximal gastric margin dictates the extent of resection for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). The value of achieving negative margins via additional gastric resection after a positive proximal margin frozen section (FS) is unknown.

METHODS

The US Gastric Cancer Collaborative includes all patients who underwent resection of GAC at seven institutions from 2000-2012. Intraoperative proximal margin FS data and final permanent section (PS) data were classified as R0 or R1, respectively; positive distal margins were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the impact on local recurrence of converting a positive proximal FS-R1 margin to a PS-R0 final margin by additional resection. Secondary endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 860 patients, 520 had a proximal margin FS and 67 were positive. Of these, 48 were converted to R0 on PS by additional resection. R0 proximal margin was achieved in 447 patients (86 %), PS-R1 in 25 (5 %), and converted FS-R1-to-PS-R0 in 48 (9 %). The median follow-up was 44 months. Local recurrence was significantly decreased in the converted FS-R1-to-PS-R0 group compared to the PS-R1 group (10 vs. 32 %; p = 0.01). Median RFS was similar between the FS-R1-to-PS-R0 and PS-R1 cohorts (25 vs. 20 months; p = 0.49), compared to 37 months for the PS-R0 group. Median OS was similar between the FS-R1-to-PS-R0 conversion and PS-R1 groups (36 vs. 26 months; p = 0.14) compared to 50 months for the PS-R0 group. On multivariate analysis, increasing T-stage and N-stage were associated with worse OS; the FS-R1-to-PS-R0 proximal margin conversion was not significantly associated with improved RFS (p = 0.68) or OS (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Conversion of a positive intraoperative proximal margin frozen section during gastric cancer resection may decrease local recurrence, but it is not associated with improved RFS or OS. This may guide decisions regarding the extent of resection.

Prognostic value of surgical margin status in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that positive surgical margin is one of the most significant risk factors for local recurrence and poor survival. However, the survival of gastric cancer (GC) patients with positive margin is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1025 stage I-III GC patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent between January 2003 and April 2008 in our centre were enrolled in this study, of whom, 75 patients got a microscopic positive resection margin. Other 950 patients with negative resection margin were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Borrmann type and extranodal metastasis were independent risk factors for positive margin. The 5-year overall survival for the patients with positive margin is merely 13.3%. Survival in such patients was similar to that of the patients staged IIIc with R0 resection. In multivariate analysis, surgical margin status was found to be an independent prognostic factor for GC patients, while histology, tumour location, TNM stage and chemotherapy were independently associated with overall survival for patients with positive margin.

CONCLUSION

Surgical margin status is an independent prognostic factor for GC. Patients with positive margin have a poor prognosis, similar to that of IIIc stage disease. When the tumour demonstrates infiltrative growth pattern (Borrmann type III and IV) and the surgical margin status is difficult to determine, extended gastrectomy should be implemented to ensure an R0 resection. Those high-risk patients should be considered for postoperative chemotherapy.

Efficacy of intraoperative gastroscopy for tumor localization in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for cancer in the middle third of the stomach

BACKGROUND

Determining resection margins for gastric cancer, which generally is not exposed to the serosal surface of the stomach, is the most important priority during totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG). This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of intraoperative gastroscopy for direct marking of tumors during TLG for gastric cancer in the middle third of the stomach.

METHODS

From May 2011 through July 2012, 20 patients with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the middle third of the stomach were enrolled in this case series. Preoperative gastroscopy for tumor localization was not performed for these patients. After the first portion of the duodenum was mobilized from the pancreas and clamped with a laparoscopic intestinal clamp, 2-3 ml of indigo carmine was administered through an endoscopic injector into the gastric muscle layer at the proximal margin of the tumor.

RESULTS

Based on intraoperative gastroscopic findings, distal subtotal gastrectomy was performed for 18 patients, with the authors deciding to perform total gastrectomy for two patients. A specimen was extracted after distal gastrectomy to confirm sufficient distance from the resection margin to the tumor before reconstruction. All the patients had tumor-free margins and required no additional resection. No morbidity related to gastroscopic procedure occurred, and the time required has been gradually decreased to about 5 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative gastroscopy for tumor localization is an accurate and comfortable method for gastric cancer patients undergoing totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Can adjuvant chemoradiotherapy replace extended lymph node dissection in gastric cancer?

Surgical resection remains the essential part in the curative treatment of gastric cancer. However, with surgery only, long-term survival is poor (5-year survival <25 % in Europe). Randomized studies, which compared limited (D1) lymph node dissection with more extended (D2) resections in the Western world, failed to show a survival benefit for more extensive surgery. A substantial increase in survival was found with perioperative chemotherapy in the MAGIC study. In addition, the SWOG/Intergroup 0116 study showed that postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) prolonged 5-year overall survival compared to surgery only. However, it has been argued that surgical undertreatment undermined survival in this trial. In a randomized Korean study, patients with advanced stage gastric cancer who received postoperative CRT had better outcome after a D2 dissection. At our institute phase I-II studies with adjuvant cisplatin and capecitabine-based CRT have been performed in over 120 patients with resected gastric cancer. Retrospective comparison of patients treated in these studies with those that had surgery only in the D1D2 study, demonstrated that postoperative CRT was associated with better outcome, especially after D1 or a R1 resection. For daily practice, it remains unclear whether patients after optimal (D2) gastric surgery will benefit from postoperative CRT. This is currently being tested in prospective randomized phase III trials (CRITICS; TOPGEAR).

Surgical treatment results of intestinal and diffuse type gastric cancer. Implications for a differentiated therapeutic approach?

AIM

To study the outcome of patients who were surgically treated for primary gastric cancer with specific attention to differences in treatment results for intestinal and diffuse type tumours.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a potentially curative gastric resection between 1995 and 2011 in our institute were included. Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were obtained retrospectively. Binary logistic and Cox regression models were used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A consecutive series of 132 patients was included. Median follow-up was 53 months. There were no significant differences between patients with intestinal (N = 62) versus diffuse type (N = 70) gastric cancer with regard to the proportion of patients who underwent (neo)adjuvant treatment. Postoperative mortality was 2%. Pathological T- and N-stage were significantly more advanced for patients with diffuse type tumours. There was a significant difference in the percentage of microscopically irradical resections (2% versus 24%, p < 0.001) and median overall survival (129 versus 17 months, p < 0.001) between patients with intestinal type tumours and those with diffuse type tumours. On multivariate analysis, diffuse type histology was the only factor significantly associated with an R1 resection. In a multivariate Cox regression model, diffuse type histology was a significant adverse prognostic factor for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Striking differences were found between patients with diffuse type tumours and those with intestinal type tumours. These differences call for a differentiated approach in the potentially curative treatment of these two tumour types.

Clinical importance and surgical decision-making regarding proximal resection margin for gastric cancer

Because of the intramural spread of gastric cancer, a sufficient length of a resection margin has to be attained to ensure complete excision of the tumor. There has been debate on an adequate length of proximal resection margin (PRM) and its related issues. Thus, the objective of this article is to review several studies on PRM and to summarize the current evidence on the subject. Although there is some discrepancy in the recommended values for PRM between authors, a PRM of more than 2-3 cm for early gastric cancer and 5-6 cm for advanced gastric cancer is thought to be acceptable. Once the margin is confirmed to be clear, however, the length of PRM measured in postoperative pathologic examination does not affect the patient’s survival, even when it is shorter than the recommended values. Hence, the recommendations for PRM length should be applied only to intraoperative decision-making to prevent positive margins on the final pathology. Given that a negative resection margin is the ultimate goal of determining an adequate PRM, development and improvement of reliable methods to confirm a negative resection margin intraoperatively would minimize the extent of surgery and offer a better quality of life to more patients. In the same context, special attention has to be paid to patients who have advanced stage or diffuse-type gastric cancer, because they are more likely to have a positive margin. Therefore, a wider excision with intraoperative frozen section (IFS) examination of the resection margin is necessary. Despite all the attempts to avoid positive margins, there is still a certain rate of positive-margin cases. Since the negative impact of a positive margin on prognosis is mostly obvious in low N stage patients, aggressive further management, such as extensive re-operation, is required for these patients. In conclusion, every possible preoperative and intraoperative evaluation should be thoroughly carried out to identify in advance the patients with a high risk of having positive margins; these patients need careful management with a wider excision or an IFS examination to confirm a negative margin during surgery.

Prognostic improvement of reexcision for positive resection margins in patients with advanced gastric cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of reexcision for advanced gastric cancer (GC) with positive resection margins on prognosis and to identify the selection criteria for the reexcision of patients with positive margins.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 122 patients with positive margins who underwent potentially curative resection for locally advanced GC. The clinicopathological factors and survival among 50 patients who were reexcised to a negative resection margin (NR group) and 72 patients who were left with a positive resection margin (PR group) were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Median survival in the PR group was 18 months compared with 23 months in the NR group (p = 0.019). In the ≤ pN2-category subset, the PR group had a significantly worse prognosis compared with the NR group (median survival of 25 months vs. 44 months; p = 0.021). This difference was not observed in the pN3-category subset. In the univariate analysis, variables including pTNM stage, pN-category, and positive resection margin had adverse effects on OS among the entire population of 122 patients. A positive margin was confirmed as an independent prognostic factor for OS in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The reexcision of a positive margin improves the prognosis of patients with advanced GC, especially in those paitents with ≤ pN2-category disease and in patients undergoing D2 lymphadenectomy. Obtaining routine frozen sections of samples from the resection margin should be mandatory in the treatment of all GC patients undergoing potentially curative surgery.

Quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality assurance is increasingly acknowledged as a crucial factor for the (surgical) treatment of gastric cancer. The purpose of the current study was to define a minimum set of evidence-based quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between January 1990 and May 2011 was performed, using search terms on gastric cancer, treatment, and quality of care. Studies were selected based on predefined selection criteria. Potential quality of care indicators were assessed based on their level of evidence and were grouped into structure, process, and outcome indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 173 articles were included in the current study. For structural measures, evidence was found for the inverse relationship between hospital volume and postoperative mortality as well as overall survival. Regarding process measures, the most common indicators concerned surgical technique, perioperative care, and multimodality treatment. The only outcome indicator with supporting evidence was a microscopically radical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although specific literature on quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer is limited, several quality of care indicators could be identified. These indicators can be used in clinical audits and other quality assurance programs.

Systematic review of the predictors of positive margins in gastric cancer surgery and the effect on survival

BACKGROUND

Complete resection is the only definitive treatment available for gastric cancer. Factors associated with positive margins and their survival effects have been the subject of many studies, but the appropriate management for these patients is still debated. The objective of this review is to examine positive margins after gastric cancer resections by exploring predictive factors, impact on survival, and optimal strategies for re-resection.

METHODS

A systematic electronic literature search was conducted using Medline and EMBASE from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2009. Studies on gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that either investigated the predictors for positive margin or employed multivariate methods to analyze the survival effects of positive margins were selected.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies incorporating 19355 patients were included in this review. Positive margins were associated with larger tumor size, deeper wall penetration, more extensive gastric involvement, greater nodal involvement, higher stage, diffuse histology, higher Borrmann type, lymphatic vessel involvement, and total gastrectomy. Patient survival was independently associated with margin status, and this survival effect was more prominent in early cancers in most studies that performed subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of acquiring positive margins is highly dependent on the biology and the extent of the tumor. There is a significant negative effect on survival, which is more prominent in cancers at early stages, making re-resection or a second operation important. Patients with more advanced disease can be offered more extensive surgery to remove disease, but this should be balanced against the risks of more extensive resections.

The predictors and clinical impact of positive resection margins on frozen section in gastric cancer surgery

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of tumor and prognosis, depending on the status of resection margin involvement, on the frozen section diagnosis in gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted retrospectively, in 83 margin-positive patients on the frozen section diagnosis, who underwent gastrectomy from July 1995 to September 2006. The control group was selected by matching the age, gender, TNM stage and status of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, among those who had shown clear resection margins. The characteristics of tumor and patient survival are investigated, and they were analyzed between the two groups.

Results

The tumor size was significantly larger in the study group than that of the control group (P=0.037). There was significant difference between the two groups in location of the tumors (P=0.003). Multivariate analysis indicated that only the location and Lauren's classification are independent factors, which affected the resection margin involvement. Median survival was 41.0±11.5 months in the study group and 93.0±30.3 months in the control group (P=0.049). In the survival analysis, it was investigated that TNM stage and the resection margin involvement of the frozen section diagnosis were the critical variables.

Conclusions

When the tumor is located at the middle or the upper third, or the Lauren's indeterminate type, they are highly likely to show the resection margin involvement on the frozen section diagnosis, and it can, therefore, have negative effects on the prognosis. It is considered as good to perform more extensive resection as possible, during the initial resection.

Prognostic impact of microscopic positive margin in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Complete resection with negative surgical margins has been a long-held surgical philosophy based on the concept that even minimal remaining cancer cells will develop recurrences.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the clinical significance of microscopic positive margin on the outcome of patients with gastric cancers.

METHODS

The relationships between the margin status and other clinicopathologic factors were examined in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy, and then the prognostic impact of the margin status was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The microscopic positive margin was identified in 23 patients (2.8%) by standard H&E staining. The positive margin showed a strong correlation significantly with tumor size (P < 0.05). Microscopic positive margin was found to be a significant prognostic factor on univariate analysis (5-year survival rate 51.9% vs. 82.2%, P < 0.0001), as well as multivariate analysis (risk ratio 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-6.50, P < 0.01). Detailed analysis of margin status demonstrated that patients with positive margin in a deep site and/or in multiple layers showed poor survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Microscopic positive margin was found to be an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer patients. The status of the surgical margin might provide useful information for selecting additional treatments and performing intensive follow-up.

Comparison of four staging systems of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The classification of lymph node metastasis in patients with gastric cancer is still controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the relative merits of four staging systems of lymph node metastasis.

METHODS

In our study, the nodal status was classified according to the 5th edition of the tumor node metastasis (TNM) system, the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma (JCGC), the ratio of metastatic lymph nodes, and the size of the largest metastatic lymph node. Each staging system was scored as good (+2), fair (+1), or poor (0) with respect to the theoretical value (extent of the anatomical lymphatic tumor spread), convenience (simplicity), surgical applicability (extent of lymph node dissection), and prognostic value (ability to predict survival rate).

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis including the four staging systems and other potential prognostic factors, stepwise Cox regression revealed that the ratio of metastatic lymph nodes was the most independent prognostic factor. The TNM, ratio, and size systems were convenient because they had no consideration for the location of the tumor and lymph node. Although the JCGC system had advantages in theoretical value and surgical application, it was most optional due to the complexity of the system.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all different staging systems are comparable, the metastatic lymph node ratio system is convenient, reproducible, and has the highest ability to predict survival.

Clinicopathologic features of gastric carcinoma with signet ring cell histology

BACKGROUND

Reports of clinicopathological features and prognosis in patients with signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach (SRC) are conflicting. The aim was to describe the clinicopathological features and prognosis of patients with SRC in comparison with non-signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach (NSRC).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed the records of 1,439 consecutive patients diagnosed with gastric carcinoma who were resected surgically from 1993 to 2003. Among them, 218 patients (15.1%) with SRC were compared with 1,221 patients with NSRC.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in tumor size, tumor location, macroscopic type, depth on invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphatic invasion, tumor stage, chemotherapy, and curability between the patients with SRC histology and NSRC. The overall 5-year survival of patients with SRC was 44.9% as compared with 36.0% for patients with NSRC (P = 0.013). Multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis and curative resection were significant factors affecting survival. A significant survival benefit for curative resection was observed, with a 5-year survival rate of 58.5% compared with non-curatively resected cases (8.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

When stage matched, SRC patients had a similar survival to NSRC patients. Curative resection is recommended to improve the prognosis of patients with SRC.

Prognostic significance of microscopic positive margins for gastric cancer patients with potentially curative resection

BACKGROUND

Most previous studies concerning the impact of positive margins on patient outcomes were based on patients with D1 lymphadenectomy. The prognostic significance of positive margins for patients with D2/D3 lymphadenectomy has not been investigated.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic and prognostic data were compared between 110 patients with positive margins and 2,159 patients with negative margins who underwent R0 surgery (D2/D3 lymphadenectomy). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent factors correlated with positive margins. Cox's proportional hazard model was applied to investigate whether a positive margin was an independent factor predicting poor outcome. Overall survival rates and the incidence of recurrence were compared between patients with positive and negative margins, stratifying by pT, pN, and TNM stage.

RESULTS

Tumor size, pT stage, and pN stage were independent factors associated with positive margins. Although the overall survival rate of patients with positive margins was significantly poorer than that of patients with negative margins, margin status was not an independent prognostic factor on multivariate analysis. Significant differences in survival between patients with negative and positive margins could be observed for those in pT1-2, pN0-1, and I-II stage, but not for those in pT3-4, pN2-3, and III-VI stage. Although locoregional recurrence was more frequently observed for patients with positive margins, the incidence of any recurrence was significantly higher only for patients in pT1-2, pN0-1, and I-II stage, but not for those in pT3-4, pN2-3, and III-VI stage.

CONCLUSION

A positive margin results in a significantly worse outcome for pT1-2, pN0-1, and I-II stage gastric cancer patients who undergo D2/D3 lymphadenectomy, but not for those in pT3-4, pN2-3, and III-IV stage.

Endoscopy-assisted gastric resection: a safe and reliable procedure for tumor clearance during laparoscopic high distal or proximal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Preoperative endoscopic tattooing or clipping is generally used to delineate the tumor-free margin in surgery for early gastric cancer. However, it is sometimes difficult to identify the line of resection during laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Between June 2003 and February 2008, we performed a total of 12 endoscopy-assisted gastric resections during laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer, including four cases of high distal gastrectomy and eight cases of proximal gastrectomy. In the laparoscopic high distal gastrectomy cases, a surgeon performed transduodenal endoscopy to identify the clips before gastric resection. For totally laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy, an endoscopist performed transoral endoscopy to identify the clips placed in the distal margin of the lesion and to facilitate intracorporeal anastomosis.

RESULTS

In all cases, we were able to observe clips as well as the primary lesion. Gastric resection was successfully performed with no positive margin. In the high distal gastrectomy group (n = 4), proximal and distal margins were 19.5 +/- 2.1 (range, 10-35) mm and 1,185 +/- 190.9 (range, 850-1,320) mm, respectively. In the proximal gastrectomy group (n = 8), proximal and distal margins were 21.3 +/- 7.1 (range, 5-38) mm and 47.5 +/- 3.5 (range, 15-75) mm, respectively. The intracorporeal side-to-side anastomosis during proximal gastrectomy was successfully performed using an endolinear stapler.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy-assisted gastric resection is a safe and reliable procedure for tumor clearance during laparoscopic high distal or proximal gastrectomy.