Meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Laparoscopic, Laparoscopic-Assisted, and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Trials Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

D2 lymphadenectomy with complete mesogastrium excision vs. conventional D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Background:

The complete mesogastrium excision (CME) based on D2 radical gastrectomy is believed to significantly reduce the local-regional recurrence compared with D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer, and it is widely used in China. This study aimed to explore whether D2 + CME is superior to D2 on surgical outcomes during gastrectomy from Chinese data.

Methods:

Feasible studies comparing the D2 + CME (D2 + CME group) and D2 (D2 group) published up to March 2020 are searched from electronic databases. The data showing surgical and complication outcomes are extracted to be pooled and analyzed.

Results:

Fourteen records including 1352 patients were included. The D2 + CME group had a shorter mean operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = —16.72 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −26.56 to −6.87 min, P < 0.001), lower mean blood loss (WMD = −39.08 mL, 95% CI: −49.94 to −28.21 mL, P < 0.001), higher mean number of retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 2.13, 95% CI: 0.58–3.67, P = 0.007), shorter time to first flatus (WMD = −0.31 d, 95% CI: −0.53 to − 0.10 d, P = 0.005), and postoperative hospital days (WMD = −1.09, 95% CI: −1.92 to −0.25, P = 0.010) than the D2 group. Subgroup analysis suggested that the advantages from the D2 + CME group were obvious in traditional open radical gastrectomy, proximal gastrectomy, and distal gastrectomy compared with D2 group. The evaluations of post-operative complications showed that the patients who underwent D2 + CME had a lower incidence of post-operative complications than the patients who underwent D2 surgery alone (relative risk [RR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45–0.87, P = 0.003). The D2 radical gastrectomy plus CME improved 3-year overall survival (OS) (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.02–1.32, P = 0.020) and lowered the local recurrence rate (RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28–0.94, P = 0.030). The patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery or total gastrectomy had more significant advantages compared between D2 + CME and D2 groups in 3-year OS.

Conclusion:

The data from China show that D2 radical gastrectomy plus CME are reliable procedures and safety compared to D2 radical gastrectomy with faster recovery, lower risk, and better prognosis.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

Surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with high rates of morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged to decrease such morbidity. The aim of this study was to accurately determine surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (TMIE).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing patients who underwent TMIE. Main outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leak, chyle leak, and mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each analyzed outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 5619 patients were included for analysis; 4781 (85.1%) underwent a laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy and 838 (14.9%) a robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Mean age of patients was 63.5 (55-67) years and 75.8% were male. Overall morbidity and major morbidity rates were 39% (95% CI, 33%-45%) and 20% (95% CI, 13%-28%), respectively. Postoperative pneumonia and arrhythmia rates were 10% (95% CI, 8%-13%) and 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%), respectively. Anastomotic leak rate across studies was 8% (95% CI, 6%-10%). Chyle leak rate was 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%). Mortality rate was 2% (95% CI, 2%-2%). Median ICU stay and length of hospital stay were 2 (1-4) and 11.2 (7-20) days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a challenging procedure with high morbidity rates. Strategies to enhance postoperative outcomes after this operation are still needed.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The oncological outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been investigated in a few studies. Our purpose was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of LG and OG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (GC) and to determine the advantages, preferences, and ease of use of the two techniques after chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent either OG (n = 43) or LG (n = 41). The neoadjuvant treatment regimen consisted of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for three cycles, which was then repeated 6 to 12 weeks after the operation for four cycles.

RESULTS

The hospital stay time and intraoperative blood loss in the LG group were significantly lower than those in the OG group. The mortality rate and the 3-year survival rate for patients in the LG group were comparable to those of patients in the OG group (4.6% vs. 9.7% and 68.3% vs. 58.1%, respectively). Similar trends were observed regarding the 3-year recurrence rate and metastasis. The mean survival time was 52.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2-61.6) in the OG group compared with 43.3 (95% CI, 36.6-49.8) in the LG group. Likewise, the mean disease-free survival was 56.1 months (95% CI, 46.36-65.8) in the LG group compared with 50.9 months (95% CI, 44.6-57.2) in the OG group.

CONCLUSION

LG is a feasible and safe alternative to OG for patients with locally advanced GC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Risk factors for postoperative pneumonia after laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients aged 75 years and over with gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

The proportion of patients aged 75 years and over who undergo minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is increasing. However, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in this age group is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate whether LG is safe and effective in patients aged 75 years and over.

METHODS

The study included 728 patients with early and advanced gastric cancer who underwent curative LG between 2009 and 2017; 166 of these patients (22.8%) were aged 75 or over. All surgeries were performed laparoscopically. Selected clinical factors were compared between the 166 patients aged 75 years and over and the 562 patients aged under 75 years.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in presence of comorbidity, respiratory function and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scores between the older and younger groups. The older patients more frequently developed complications than the younger ones, particularly postoperative pneumonia. According to multivariate analyses of all participants, age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and D2 lymphadenectomy were independent risk factors for postoperative pneumonia. Advanced stage and D2 lymphadenectomy were independent risk factors in the older group, whereas only COPD was an independent risk factor in the younger group.

CONCLUSIONS

LG for gastric cancer can be safely performed in patients aged over 75 years with an acceptable complication rate. However, the present data suggest that care should be taken in selecting LG with D2 lymphadenectomy to treat advanced cancer in these patients because the risk of postoperative complications, especially postoperative pneumonia, increases.

Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major surgical approaches for operable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and robotic distal gastrectomy. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% credible intervals were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (5,909 patients) were included. Overall, 2,776 (46.8%) underwent open distal gastrectomy, 2,964 (50.1%) laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy, and 141 (3.1%) robotic distal gastrectomy. Among these 3 groups, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, and overall complications. Compared to open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative pain, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay. Similarly, robotic distal gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced blood loss and time to first flatus compared to open distal gastrectomy. No differences were found in the total number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor-free resection margins, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival. The subgroup analysis in locally advanced gastric cancer showed trends toward reduced blood loss, time to first flatus, and hospital length of stay with minimally invasive approaches but similar overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed by well-trained experienced surgeons, even in the setting of locally advanced gastric cancer, seem associated with improved short-term outcomes with similar overall and disease-free survival compared with open distal gastrectomy.

Advantageous Short-Term Outcomes of Esophagojejunostomy Using a Linear Stapler Following Open Total Gastrectomy Compared with a Circular Stapler

BACKGROUND

Esophagojejunostomy is one of the most important surgical procedures in total gastrectomy. In the past, esophagojejunostomy was exclusively performed using a circular stapler in open total gastrectomy (OTG). With the increasing frequency of its use in laparoscopic gastrectomy, esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler has been performed in OTG. However, it is still unclear whether the use of a linear stapler in esophagojejunostomy following OTG has any advantages compared with the conventional use of a circular stapler.

METHODS

A total of 298 patients who underwent OTG for gastric cancer between 2014 and 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients were categorized into circular and linear groups (group C and group L) according to the stapler type used for the esophagojejunostomy. After propensity score matching, 136 patients (68 each in groups C and L) were selected to compare the surgical outcomes including incidence of esophagojejunostomy-related complications and postoperative nutritional status.

RESULTS

The median operation time was significantly longer in group L than in group C (261.5 min versus 325.5 min; P < 0.001). The incidence of esophagojejunostomy-related complications did not differ between the two groups (5.9% versus 2.9%; P = 0.68); however, no anastomotic stricture and bleeding occurred in group L. Bodyweight loss was significantly lower in group L than in group C at 6 months (15.9% versus 12.6%; P = 0.007) after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler following OTG is equally safe and possibly advantageous in anastomotic stricture, bleeding and nutritional status compared with the use of a circular stapler.

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

PURPOSE

It is unclear whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer is oncologically equivalent to open distal gastrectomy. The noninferiority of laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer compared with open surgery in terms of 3-year relapse-free survival rate was evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A phase III, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted for patients with histologically proven locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma suitable for distal subtotal gastrectomy. The primary end point was the 3-year relapse-free survival rate; the upper limit of the hazard ratio (HR) for noninferiority was 1.43 between the laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy groups.

RESULTS

From November 2011 to April 2015, 1,050 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (n = 524) or open surgery (n = 526). After exclusions, 492 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 482 underwent open surgery and were included in the analysis. The laparoscopy group, compared with the open surgery group, suffered fewer early complications (15.7% v 23.4%, respectively; P = .0027) and late complications (4.7% v 9.5%, respectively; P = .0038), particularly intestinal obstruction (2.0% v 4.4%, respectively; P = .0447). The 3-year relapse-free survival rate was 80.3% (95% CI, 76.0% to 85.0%) for the laparoscopy group and 81.3% (95% CI, 77.0% to 85.0%; log-rank P = .726) for the open group. Cox regression analysis after stratification by the surgeon revealed an HR of 1.035 (95% CI, 0.762 to 1.406; log-rank P = .827; P for noninferiority = .039). When stratified by pathologic stage, the HR was 1.020 (95% CI, 0.751 to 1.385; log-rank P = .900; P for noninferiority = .030).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy was comparable to open surgery in terms of relapse-free survival for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy could be a potential standard treatment option for locally advanced gastric cancer.

Effect of Standardizing the Incision Line on Delayed Gastric Emptying After Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Preliminary Analysis

Background

The use of totally laparoscopic surgery with Billroth-I reconstruction (delta-shaped anastomosis) has rapidly become widespread in recent years. However, we experienced delayed gastric emptying (DGE) in the early period after introduction of this technique. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports that mention the incision line when discussion prevention of DGE in distal gastrectomy. In the present study, we standardized the surgical techniques, including the gastric incision line, and compared the short-term results before and after standardization.

Methods

A total of 86 patients were enrolled in this study. Twenty-eight procedures were performed in the early period, 58 procedures were performed in the late period, and the 2 groups were compared retrospectively.

Results

The operation time decreased significantly after standardization from 288 to 224 minutes (P &lt; 0.001). The median value of perioperative bleeding volume decreased from 22.5 to 12.5 mL (P = 0.060). There were no postoperative complications related to the site of anastomosis in either group. Five cases of DGE (17.8%) were noted in the early period, but only 2 cases (3.4%) were noted in the late period (P = 0.022).

Conclusions

Standardization of the incision line after laparoscopic gastrectomy resulted in a decrease in the incidence of DGE.

Effect of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy vs Open Distal Gastrectomy on Long-term Survival Among Patients With Stage I Gastric Cancer: The KLASS-01 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is gaining popularity over open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer because of better early postoperative outcomes. However, to our knowledge, no studies have proved whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is oncologically equivalent to open distal gastrectomy.

Objective

To examine whether the long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer undergoing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is noninferior to that among patients undergoing open distal gastrectomy.

Design

The Korean Laparoendoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery Study (KLASS) group, which includes 15 surgeons from 13 institutes, conducted a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, prospective randomized clinical trial (KLASS-01) of patients with histologically proven, preoperative clinical stage I gastric adenocarcinoma from January 5, 2006, to August 23, 2010. Survival and recurrence status of the patients was determined in December 2016.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (n = 705) or open distal gastrectomy (n = 711). Of these patients, 85 received a surgical approach opposite the one to which they were randomized (63 randomized to the open surgery group and 22 to the laparoscopic group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Difference in 5-year overall survival between the laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy groups. The noninferiority margin was prespecified as -5% (corresponding hazard ratio of 1.54), with an assumed survival of 90% after 5 years in the open surgery group.

Results

Among the 1416 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.3 [11.1] years; 940 [66.4%] male) included in the study, the 5-year overall survival rates were 94.2% in the laparoscopic group and 93.3% in the open surgery group (log-rank P = .64). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed the noninferiority of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open approach (difference, 0.9 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6 to infinity). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.1% in the laparoscopic group and 97.2% in the open surgery group, log-rank P = .91; difference, -0.03 percentage points; 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.8 to infinity). Per-protocol analysis results were consistent with the intention-to-treat results for overall and cancer-specific survival rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

The KLASS-01 trial revealed similar overall and cancer-specific survival rates between patients receiving laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to open surgery for stage I gastric cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00452751.

[Surgical management for early stage gastric cancer]

BACKGROUND

In the last decade the implementation of the new technique of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and the rapid progression of laparoscopic gastric cancer (LAG) resection with an adequate lymphadenectomy (LAD) have played an increasing role in the treatment of patients with early stage gastric cancer (EGC).

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the currently available data in the literature was carried out to evaluate the contemporary surgical management for treatment of EGC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection (ER) of mucosal T1 gastric cancer (T1m) in accordance with the German guidelines on resection criteria is a widely accepted treatment option, if a definitive R0 resection can be achieved. Excellent en bloc and R0 results in more than 90% of these cases have been shown particularly for ESD. In contrast to T1m gastric carcinomas with a low risk of lymph node metastases (approximately 3%), nodal involvement reaches more than 20% for submucosal infiltrated EGC (T1sm). For this reason, a surgical resection with adequate LAD is further recommended in all cases of non-curative ER or any T1sm gastric cancer. In seven randomized controlled trials and a series of meta-analyses including high-quality non-randomized trials, significant benefits in short-term postoperative outcome have been demonstrated for LAG in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) in the treatment of EGC. The general morbidity was also significantly lower in LAG than in OG. The 30-day mortality and long-term survival outcome were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of ESD should be the standard treatment for T1m EGC within the guidelines criteria. For non-curative ESD and T1sm gastric cancer, surgical resection with LAD is recommended. The LAG is a technically safe, feasible, and favorable approach in terms of faster recovery compared to OG. The long-term survival outcome is comparable between LAG and OG for EGC.

Current status of laparoscopic total gastrectomy

In this article, the current state of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) was reviewed, focusing on lymph node dissection and reconstruction. Lymph node dissection in LTG is technically similar to that in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer; however, LTG for advanced gastric cancer requires extended lymph node dissections including splenic hilar lymph nodes. Although a recent randomized controlled trial clearly indicated no survival benefit in prophylactic splenectomy for lymph node dissection at the splenic hilum, some patients may receive prognostic benefit from adequate splenic hilar lymph node dissection. Considering reconstruction, there are two major esophagojejunostomy (EJS) techniques, using a circular stapler (CS) or using a linear stapler (LS). A few studies have shown that the LS method has fewer complications; however, almost all studies have reported that morbidity (such as anastomotic leakage and stricture) is not significantly different for the two methods. As for CS, we grouped various studies addressing complications in LTG into categories according to the insertion procedure of the anvil and the insertion site in the abdominal wall for the CS. We compared the rate of complications, particularly for leakage and stricture. The rate of anastomotic leakage and stricture was the lowest when inserting the CS from the upper left abdomen and was significantly the highest when inserting the CS from the midline umbilical. Scrupulous attention to EJS techniques is required by surgeons with a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each anastomotic device and approach.

Optical trocar access for initial trocar placement in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: A propensity score-matching analysis

INTRODUCTION

Optical trocar access is a technique to place the initial trocar in laparoscopic surgery. With optical trocar access, each tissue layer can be visualized before insertion, which can help prevent organ injury, and air leaks at the trocar site can be minimized even in obese patients. The aim of this study was to compare the time needed for trocar insertion using optical trocar access and an open method in patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database and identified 384 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery involving initial trocar insertion near the umbilicus by either the optical trocar access or the open method. Before the two methods were compared, propensity score matching was used to adjust for essential variables between the optical trocar access and open groups.

RESULTS

Patients categorized in the optical trocar access and open groups were matched one-to-one by propensity score matching, and 137 pairs of patients were generated. The time needed for trocar insertion was significantly shorter in the optical trocar access group than in the open group (36.6 vs 209.8 s, P < 0.01). The multivariable analysis identified an inexperienced surgeon as the only independent risk factor for prolonged time for initial trocar insertion using the optical trocar access.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that optical trocar access may be recommended for inserting the initial trocar in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

Robotic total gastrectomy with π-shaped esophagojejunostomy using a linear stapler as a novel technique

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of a novel robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after D2 total gastrectomy (TG) using the Da Vinci robotic surgical system for intracorporeal anastomosis after TG.

BACKGROUND

Intracorporeal π-shaped EJS, using a linear stapler, was recently reported for laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. However, robotic intracorporeal π-shaped EJS using a linear stapler has not been reported. This report aimed to describe the use of a novel technique for π-shaped EJS using the Da Vinci robotic system.

METHODS

Robotic intracorporeal π-shaped esophagojejunostomy after total gastrectomy was performed in 11 consecutive patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer, and their perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

All the operations were successful without conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery and postoperative complications. The total number of patients was 11 (7 males and 4 females). The mean age of the patients was 63.36 ± 10.56 years old. Seven patients were diagnosed with cardia cancer, 3 patients were diagnosed with gastric body cancer, and 1 patient was diagnosed with gastric antrum cancer. The patients' mean proximal resection margin was 3.18 ± 1.17 cm, the distal resection margin was 6.18 ± 1.40 cm, the mean length of the incision was 4.55 ± 0.69 cm, the mean operative time was 287.27 ± 30.69 min, the mean day of first flatus was 3.27 ± 0.79 days, the mean day of the start of diet was 2.91 ± 0.94 days, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.45 ± 5.13 days, and the mean operative blood loss was 47.27 ± 31.33 ml. No complications were observed during anastomosis, and the median anastomosis time was 19.5 min. The mean number of lymph node dissections was 17.91 ± 4.59, the mean number of positive lymph nodes was 0.45 ± 0.69, all patients were diagnosed with stage I-II gastric cancer, and the mean maximum diameter of the tumor was 2.67 ± 1.30 cm. All the patients had a smooth hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

A novel robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal π-shaped EJS for esophagojejunal anastomosis described and shows acceptable resulted. This technique has the potential to offer better short-term surgical outcomes and overcomes the drawbacks of laparoscopy with a decreased risk of complications during and after surgery.

Cost of open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: surgeon perceptions versus the reality of hospital spending

BACKGROUND

Rising health care costs have led to increasing focus on cost containment and accountability from health care providers. We sought to explore surgeon awareness of supply costs for open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

METHODS

Surveys were sent in 2015 to surgeons at 8 academic hospitals in Toronto who performed distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Respondents were asked to estimate the total cost, type and number of disposable equipment pieces required to perform open and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. We determined the accuracy of estimates through comparisons with procedural invoices for distal gastrectomy performed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2015. All values are in 2015 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Of the 53 surveys sent out, 12 were completed (response rate 23%). Surgeon estimates of total supply costs ranged from $500 to $3000 and from $1500 to $5000 for open and laparoscopic cases, respectively. Estimated supply costs for requested equipment ranged from $464 to $2055 for open cases and from $1870 to $2960 for laparoscopic cases. Invoices for actual equipment yielded a mean of $821 (standard deviation $543) (range $89-$2613) for open cases and $2678 (standard deviation $958) (range $835-$4102) for laparoscopic cases. Estimates of total cost were within 25% of the median invoice total in 1 response (9%) for open cases and 3 (27%) of those for laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSION

Respondents failed to accurately estimate equipment costs. The variation in true total costs and estimates of supply costs represents an opportunity for intraoperative cost minimization, efficient equipment selection and value-based purchasing arrangements.

Learning curve of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single teaching hospital study

Introduction

Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) for gastric cancer has gradually gained popularity. However, the learning curve of TLDG is rarely reported.

Aim

To determine the learning curve of TLDG for gastric cancer.

Material and methods

We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the medical records of 80 patients with gastric cancer who underwent TLDG with lymph node dissection from January 2016 to December 2017. We divided the patients into four groups based on when they underwent TLDG: group A (cases 1–20), group B (cases 21–40), group C (cases 41–60), and group D (cases 61–80). Comparative analyses of clinical data, including clinicopathologic characteristics, operative data, and postoperative course, were performed for these groups.

Results

No significant difference was observed between the groups in various clinicopathologic characteristics. Total operative time for group A (168.3 ±14.6 min) was significantly longer than for groups B (152.5 ±10.5 min), C (154.2 ±11.6 min), and D (155.3 ±10.8 min), but there was no significant difference between groups B, C, and D. Anastomosis time for group A (27.5 ±12.4 min) was significantly longer than for groups B (15.3 ±4.6 min), C (16.6 ±5.7 min), and D (15.4 ±4.5 min), but there was no significant difference between groups B, C, and D. Non-anastomosis time, estimated blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications showed no difference between the four groups.

Conclusions

An experience of approximately 20 cases of TLDG was required to complete the learning curve.

Feasibility and Safety of Totally Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Comparison with Early Gastric Cancer

Purpose

Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a technically and oncologically challenging procedure for surgeons. This study aimed to compare the oncologic feasibility and technical safety of TLG for AGC versus early gastric cancer (EGC).

Materials and Methods

Between 2011 and 2016, 535 patients (EGC, 375; AGC, 160) underwent curative TLG for gastric cancer. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes of both patient groups were analyzed and compared.

Results

Patients with AGC required a longer operation time and experienced more intraoperative blood loss than those with EGC did. However, patients from both the AGC and EGC groups demonstrated similar short-term surgical outcomes such as postoperative morbidity (14.4% vs. 13.3%, P=0.626), mortality (0% vs. 0.5%, P=0.879), time-to-first oral intake (2.7 days for both groups, P=0.830), and postoperative hospital stay (10.2 days vs. 10.1 days, P=0.886). D2 lymph node dissection could be achieved in the AGC group (95%), with an adequate number of lymph nodes being dissected (36.0±14.9). In the AGC group, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 80.5% and 73.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

TLG is as safe and effective for AGC as it is for EGC.

Assessing safety and feasibility of 'pure' laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the West. Review article

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is reported to be the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Minimally invasive surgical treatment for gastric cancer is a very challenging approach which offers undoubtedly important advantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There is intense debate concerning the minimally invasive surgical approach for advanced gastric cancer especially in the Western population. A careful literature search was conducted in order to clarify the feasibility and safety of pure laparoscopic total gastrectomy in the West.

RESULTS

Herewith we aim to summarize the current scientific evidence assessing the feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the West. A lack of data from Western institutions regarding minimally invasive surgical approach for gastric cancer is yet a reality. Nevertheless, the laparoscopic procedure appears to provide satisfactory short-term oncologic outcomes and improved postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that future well-conducted trials on long-term results are necessary for Western patients in order safe conclusions to be reached regarding a potential definitive 'place' for laparoscopy in the curative gastric cancer treatment.

Morbidity and mortality from a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a nationwide web-based database

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists regarding the technical feasibility of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), and to our knowledge, no prospective study with a sample size sufficient to investigate its safety has been reported. We aimed to compare the postoperative morbidity and mortality rates in patients undergoing LTG and open total gastrectomy (OTG) for gastric cancer in prospectively enrolled cohort using nationwide web-based registry.

METHODS

From August 2014 to July 2015, consecutive patients undergoing LTG or OTG (925 and 1569 patients, respectively) at the participating institutions were enrolled prospectively into the National Clinical Database registration system. We constructed propensity score (PS) models separately in four facility yearly case-volume groups, and evaluated the postoperative morbidity and mortality in PS-matched 1024 patients undergoing LTG or OTG.

RESULTS

The incidence of overall morbidity were 84 (16.4%) in the OTG and 54 (10.3%) in the LTG groups (p = 0.01).The incidence of anastomotic leakage and pancreatic fistula grade B or above were not significantly different between the two groups (LTG 5.3% vs. OTG 6.1%, p = 0.59, LTG 2.7% vs. OTG 3.7%, p = 0.38, respectively). There were also no significant differences in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates between the two groups (LTG 0.2% vs. OTG 0.4%, p = 0.56; LTG 0.4% vs. OTG 0.4%, p = 1.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results from our nationally representative data analysis showed that LTG could be a safe procedure to treat gastric cancer compared to OTG. The indication for LTG should be considered carefully in a clinical setting.

Intra-corporeal hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy is a safe and feasible procedure for totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy: short-term outcomes in 100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

An optimal method for intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy has not yet been standardized. This study sought to introduce intracorporeal hand-sewn end-to-side esophagojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

METHODS

The author conducted a consecutive series of 100 intracorporeal hand-sewn esophagojejunostomies after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper third gastric cancer from September 2012 to December 2016.

RESULTS

All patients were successfully operated on without conversion to open- or laparoscope-assisted surgery. The mean reconstruction time was 45 min, and the time until first flatus was 4 days. The time to start a soft diet was 7 days. The length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 days. The overall postoperative morbidity was 8%, including one anastomotic leak, and the mortality was zero. The median follow-up duration was 13 months; no anastomotic strictures were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracorporeal hand-sewn end-to-side esophagojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure. This method can identify negative margins with intraoperative frozen sections before reconstruction and could be a good option for performing intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy with an advanced endoscopic suture technique.

Risk factors for recurrence of gastric cancer after curative laparoscopic gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Curative laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is associated with good outcomes when performed for early gastric cancers. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for recurrence after LG.

METHODS

212 patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy were enrolled (LG: 143, open gastrectomy, OG: 69). Univariate analysis was used to assess overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in LG and OG group. Multivariate analysis was used to assess risk factors for recurrence after LG.

RESULTS

In LG, six cases of recurrence were observed (liver: 2, peritoneum: 4). Neither lymph node nor port-site recurrences were evident after LG. The 5-year DFS after LG was 91.4%. Based on univariate analysis of 5-year DFS, three negative prognostic factors-lymph node metastasis, lymphatic invasion, and venous invasion-were identified. The independent risk factor for recurrence of LG was lymph node metastasis. LG and OG showed no significant differences in 5-year DFS among Stage IA, IB, IIA, and IIB groups. Independent risk factors for recurrence after LG or OG were tumor invasion≥muscularis mucosa and lymph node metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

DFS following LG is comparable to that following OG. Lymph node metastasis is an independent risk factor for gastric cancer recurrence after LG. J. Med. Invest. 64: 79-84, February, 2017.

Three-Port Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TP-LDG) as a reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified 146 patients preoperatively diagnosed with early gastric cancer who underwent five-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (FP-LDG) or TP-LDG between May 2013 and July 2016. A propensity score matching analysis was used to create patient groups (48 patients in each group) matched for sex, age, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery history, and American Society of Anesthesiologist score. The short-term surgical outcomes between TP-LDG and FP-LDG were compared.

RESULTS

The TP-LDG group had a statistically shorter umbilical wound length [3.4 (range, 3.0-4.0) cm vs. 3.9 (range, 3.7-4.0) cm, p = .000], shorter operative time [230 (range, 190-310) min vs. 250 (range, 180-320) min, p = .036], and lower estimated blood loss [68 (range, 20-180) mL vs. 80 (range, 40-150) mL, p = .005] compared to that in the FP-LDG group. However, there was no specific superiority regarding inflammatory profiles. Complication rates were also similar (8.4% TP-LDG vs. 12.6% FP-LDG, p = .504).

CONCLUSIONS

TP-LDG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for the patients with early gastric cancer and provides the benefit of better cosmesis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the potential effectiveness of robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies comparing RAG and OG in gastric cancer. Participants of any age and sex were considered for inclusion in comparative studies of the two techniques independently from type of gastrectomy. A meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes was performed to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to OG. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, morbidity, and hospital stay. Secondary among postoperative complications, wound infection, bleeding and anastomotic leakage were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles, 5 retrospective and 1 randomized controlled study, involving 6123 patients overall, with 689 (11.3%) cases submitted to RAG and 5434 (88.7%) to OG, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. RAG was associated with longer operation time than OG (weighted mean difference 72.20 min; P < 0.001), but with reduction in blood loss and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference -166.83 mL and -1.97 d respectively; P < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to overall postoperative complications (P = 0.65), wound infection (P = 0.35), bleeding (P = 0.65), and anastomotic leakage (P = 0.06). The postoperative mortality rates were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncological outcomes, no statistical differences among the number of harvested lymph nodes were found (weighted mean difference -1.12; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

RAG seems to be a technically valid alternative to OG for performing radical gastrectomy in gastric cancer resulting in safe complications.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

The number of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed per year has been increasing, particularly in East Asia where the incidence of gastric cancer is high and approximately half of the cases are diagnosed as early gastric cancer. With articulated devices of RG, surgeons are able to perform every procedure more meticulously, which can result in less bleeding and damage to organs. There are many single arm and comparative studies, and these study showed similar trends, which included relatively less estimated blood loss and longer operation time following RG than laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), equivalent number of harvested lymph nodes and similar length of postoperative hospital stay between RG and LG. Considering the results of these retrospective comparative studies, RG seems to be as feasible as LG in terms of early surgical outcomes. However, medical expense of RG is approximately twice as much as that of LG. Lack of solid evidence in terms of long-term outcomes is another problem. Considering the higher medical expenses associated with RG, its superiority in terms of long-term survival outcomes needs to be confirmed in the future for it to be accepted more widely.

Introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a Western tertiary referral centre: A prospective cost analysis during the learning curve

AIM

To evaluate the costs of the introduction of a laparoscopic surgery program for gastric cancer in a Western community training hospital and tertiary referral centre for gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent in 2013 and 2014 were prospectively included. Primary outcomes were costs regarding surgery and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was used in 52 patients [mean age 68 years (± 9, range 50 to 87)] and open gastrectomy was used in 25 patients [mean age 70 years (± 10, range 46 to 85)]. Mean costs (in euro’s) of surgical instrumentation were significantly higher for laparoscopic surgery: 2270 ± 670 vs 1181 ± 680 in the open approach (P < 0.001). Costs of theatre use were higher in the laparoscopic group: mean 3819 ± 865 vs 2545 ± 1268 in the open surgery (P < 0.001). Total costs of hospitalization (i.e., costs of surgery and admission) were not different between laparoscopic and open surgery, 8187 ± 4864 and 7673 ± 8064 respectively (P = 0.729). Mean length of hospital stay was 9 ± 12 d in the laparoscopic group vs 14 ± 14 d in the open group (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer coincided with higher costs for theatre use and surgical instrumentation compared to the open technique. Total costs were not significantly different due to shorter length of stay and less intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and shorter ICU stay in the laparoscopic group.

Notes on laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery-current status from clinical studies of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer

To establish high-quality evidence of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LAG) in the field of gastric cancer treatments, large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials have been performed in Japan, Korea and China. Furthermore, as advanced laparoscopic techniques have been developed, prospective clinical studies are being performed with regard to laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy. This review summarizes the current status of minimally invasive surgeries for gastric cancer based on the latest ongoing clinical trials.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Impact of Centralizing Gastric Cancer Surgery on Treatment, Morbidity, and Mortality

INTRODUCTION

Centralization of gastric cancer surgery is thought to improve outcome and has been imposed in the Netherlands since 2012. This study analyzes the effect of centralization in terms of treatment outcome and survival in the Eastern part of the Netherlands.

METHODS

All gastric cancer patients without distant metastases who underwent a gastrectomy in six hospitals in the Eastern part of the Netherlands between 2008 and 2011 (pre-centralization) and 2013-2016 (post-centralization) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumor characteristics and treatment outcomes (duration of surgery, blood loss, resection margin, lymphadenectomy, chemotherapy, postoperative complications and hospital stay, and overall and disease-free survival) were analyzed and compared between pre- and post-centralization.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were included pre-centralization and 106 patients post-centralization. Patient and tumor characteristics were almost similar in the two periods. After centralization, more patients were treated with perioperative chemotherapy (25 vs. 42% p < 0.01). The proportion of patients treated with an adequate lymphadenectomy (21 vs. 93% p < 0.01) and laparoscopic surgery (6 vs. 40% p < 0.01) increased significantly (p < 0.01). The amount of cardiac complications (16 vs. 7.5% p < 0.05) decreased; however, complications needing a re-intervention were comparable (42 vs. 40% p = 0.79). Median hospital stay decreased from 10 to 8 days (p < 0.01). A 30-day mortality did not differ significantly (4.2 vs. 1.9%). A 1-year overall (78 vs. 80% p = 0.17) and disease-free survival (73 vs. 74% p = 0.66) remained stable.

DISCUSSION

Centralizing gastric cancer treatment in the Eastern part of the Netherlands resulted in improved lymph node harvesting and a successful introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomies. Centralization has not translated into improved mortality, and other variables may also have led to these improved outcomes. Further research using a nationwide population-based study will be needed to confirm these data.

Outcomes and Use of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Resection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery are well established. Laparoscopic resection for gastric cancer is safe and results in equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared with open resection. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of laparoscopy to treat gastric cancer and the associated outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) dataset was queried for patients with gastric cancer (ICD-9 Code 151.0-151.9) from January 2005 through December 2012. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of open gastrectomy (CPT code 43620-2, 43631-4) versus that of the laparoscopic procedure on the stomach (CPT code 43650), while adjusting for preoperative risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 4116 patients with gastric cancer were identified and divided by surgical approach into 2 groups: open gastrectomy (n = 3725; 90.5%) and laparoscopic procedure on the stomach (n = 391; 9.5%). After adjustment for preoperative risk factors, complications were significantly fewer in laparoscopic versus open gastric resection (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45-0.82; P = .001). After adjusting for preoperative risk factors, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality with laparoscopic compared to open gastric resection (OR 0.74; 95% CI = 0.32-1.72; P = .481).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is underused in the treatment of gastric cancer. Given that laparoscopic gastric resection has a lower morbidity in comparison to open resection, steps should be made toward advancing the use of laparoscopy for gastric cancer.

Robotic gastrectomy for elderly gastric cancer patients: comparisons with robotic gastrectomy in younger patients and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer has been adopted to overcome technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy from 2003 to 2010 in a single high-volume center were included in this study. We retrospectively compared preoperative characteristics, perioperative factors, and oncological parameters among an elderly (≥70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 49), a younger (<70 years old) robotic gastrectomy group (n = 321), and an elderly laparoscopic gastrectomy group (n = 132).

RESULTS

The elderly robotic group presented with more comorbidities than the younger robotic group. Except for number of retrieved lymph nodes (36.5 vs. 41.5; P = 0.007), short-term operative outcomes including complications and pathological parameters were comparable between the two robotic groups. The elderly robotic group showed comparable disease-specific survival to the younger robotic group although overall survival was worse. Compared to their laparoscopic counterparts, the elderly robotic group showed longer mean operation time (227 vs. 174 min). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications was not different between the two elderly groups. Overall and disease-specific survival were also comparable between the elderly groups. In multivariate analysis, age and surgical approach were not risk factors for overall and major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in the elderly did not differ from those in younger robotic gastrectomy patients and were comparable to those in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Thus, robotic gastrectomy could be a safe and feasible approach in elderly patients.

Recent insights in the therapeutic management of patients with gastric cancer

Gastric cancer remains frequent and one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. In this article, we aimed to comprehensively review recent insights in the therapeutic management of gastric cancer, with focus on the surgical and perioperative management of resectable forms, and the latest advances regarding advanced diseases. Surgical improvements comprise the use of laparoscopic surgery including staging laparoscopy, a better definition of nodal dissection, and the development of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The best individualized perioperative management should be assessed before curative-intent surgery for all patients and can consists in perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy or adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The optimal timing and sequence of chemotherapy and radiation therapy with respect to surgery should be further explored. Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis. Nevertheless, they can benefit from doublet or triplet chemotherapy combination, including trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients. Upon progression, second-line therapy can be considered in patients with good performance status. Although anti-HER2 (trastuzumab) and anti-VEGFR (ramucirumab) may yield survival benefit, anti-EGFR and anti-HGFR therapies have failed to improve outcomes. Nevertheless, combination regimens containing cytotoxic drugs and targeted therapies should be further evaluated; keeping in mind that gastric cancer biology is different between Asia and the Western countries.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Associations between antithrombotic therapy and the risk of perioperative complications among patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with perioperative morbidity among patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy while receiving antithrombotic therapy (ATT).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

This retrospective cohort study included 46 patients (14 females and 32 males) who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy, including 12 (26.1 %) who received perioperative ATT, between January 2012 and November 2015 in our institution. Among patients receiving only aspirin as antiplatelet therapy, none were on anticoagulation therapy. All patients took aspirin as antiplatelet therapy for cardiac indications. The clinical findings and surgical outcomes of patients who did (ATT group) and did not (control group) receive ATT were compared.

RESULTS

The intraoperative mortality was 0 % for both groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative morbidity by univariate analysis between the control and ATT groups (8.8 vs. 8.3 %, p = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

The risk of postoperative morbidity of laparoscopic gastrectomy can be equivalent between the ATT and non-ATT (control) groups.

Feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for patients with poor physical status: A propensity-score matching study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has been established to be a minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer. However, few studies have shown the feasibility of LAG in patients with risky comorbidities according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification. We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess the feasibility of LG in patients with an ASA-PS class of 3 or higher.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 214 patients with an ASA-PS class of 3 or 4 among 1192 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with lymph-node dissection between 1999 and 2014 in our hospital. Finally, 106 patients were generated by propensity-score matching between LAG and open gastrectomy (OG). Postoperative complications were compared between LAG and OG.

RESULT

The overall incidence of complications was the same in LAG (30%) and OG (30%). Surgical complications were similar in LAG and OG (19% and 17%, p = 0.80). Medical complications also did not differ significantly between LAG and OG (21% and 15%, p = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

LAG was a feasible procedure for patients with gastric cancer who had an ASA-PS class of 3 or 4 and could undergo general anesthesia. LAG can become an optional treatment for such risky patients.

Recent developments and innovations in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer has an important place in the worldwide incidence of cancer and cancer-related deaths. It can metastasize to the lymph nodes in the early stages, and lymph node metastasis is an important prognostic factor. Surgery is a very important part of gastric cancer treatment. A D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for cT1N+ and T2-T4 cancers, which are potentially curable. Recently, the TNM classification system was reorganized, and the margins for gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy were revised. Endoscopic, laparoscopic and robotic treatments of gastric cancer have progressed rapidly with development of surgical instruments and techniques, especially in Eastern countries. Different endoscopic resection techniques have been identified, and these can be divided into two main categories: endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Minimally invasive surgery has been reported to be safe and effective for early gastric cancer, and it can be successfully applied to advanced gastric cancer with increasing experience. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermıc intraperıtoneal chemotherapy were developed as a combined treatment modality from the results of experimental and clinical studies. Also, hyperthermia increases the antitumor activity and penetration of chemotherapeutics. Trastuzumab which is a monoclonal antibody interacts with human epidermal growth factor (HER) 2 and is related to gastric carcinoma. The anti-tumor mechanism of trastuzumab is not clearly known, but mechanisms such as interruption of the HER2-mediated cell signaling pathways and cell cycle progression have been reported previously. H. pylori is involved in 90% of all gastric malignancies and Japanese guidelines strongly recommend that all H. pylori infections should be eradicated regardless of the associated disease. In this review, we present innovations discussed in recent studies.

Ongoing clinical studies of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer in Japan

Since the development of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer in Japan, this type of surgery is improving and evolving. To establish high-quality evidence of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LAG) in the field of gastric cancer treatments, two large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials have been performed in Japan; the Japan Clinical Oncology Study Group (JCOG) 0912 for early disease and the Japanese Laparoscopic Surgery Study Group (JLSSG) 0901 for advanced disease. Analyses using mega-data from the National Clinical Database (NCD) have also been carried out as a clinical study to clarify the safety of LAG. Furthermore, as advanced laparoscopic techniques have been developed, prospective clinical studies are being performed with regard to laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG), robotic gastrectomy, and minimally invasive surgery with sentinel node (SN) navigation. This review summarizes the current status of minimally invasive surgeries for gastric cancer based on the latest ongoing clinical trials in Japan.

Minimally invasive surgery in gastrointestinal cancer: benefits, challenges, and solutions for underutilization

Background and Objectives:

After the widespread application of minimally invasive surgery for benign diseases and given its proven safety and efficacy, minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer has gained substantial attention in the past several years. Despite the large number of publications on the topic and level I evidence to support its use in colon cancer, minimally invasive surgery for most gastrointestinal malignancies is still underused.

Methods:

We explore some of the challenges that face the fusion of minimally invasive surgery technology in the management of gastrointestinal malignancies and propose solutions that may help increase the utilization in the future. These solutions are based on extensive literature review, observation of current trends and practices in this field, and discussion made with experts in the field.

Results:

We propose 4 different solutions to increase the use of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies: collaboration between surgical oncologists/hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and minimally invasive surgeons at the same institution; a single surgeon performing 2 fellowships in surgical oncology/hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and minimally invasive surgery; establishing centers of excellence in minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer management; and finally, using robotic technology to help with complex laparoscopic skills.

Conclusions:

Multiple studies have confirmed the utility of minimally invasive surgery techniques in dealing with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. However, training continues to be the most important challenge that faces the use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of gastrointestinal malignancy; implementation of our proposed solutions may help increase the rate of adoption in the future.

Laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery: Current evidence and future perspectives

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted as a standard alternative for the treatment of early-stage gastric adenocarcinoma because of its favorable short-term outcomes. Although controversies exist, such as establishing clear indications, proper preoperative staging, and oncologic safety, experienced surgeons and institutions have applied this approach, along with various types of function-preserving surgery, for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. With technical advancement and the advent of state-of-the-art instruments, indications for laparoscopic gastrectomy are expected to expand as far as locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic gastrectomy appears to be promising; however, scientific evidence necessary to generalize this approach to a standard treatment for all relevant patients and care providers remains to be gathered. Several multicenter, prospective randomized trials in high-incidence countries are ongoing, and results from these trials will highlight the short- and long-term outcomes of the approach. In this review, we describe up-to-date findings and critical issues regarding laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Endoscopic Resection Compared with Gastrectomy to Treat Early Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection and gastrectomy are treatment modalities for early gastric cancer, but their relative benefits and risks are unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic resection and gastrectomy for treating early gastric cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until April 2015 for studies comparing endoscopic resection with gastrectomy for treatment of early gastric cancer. Outcome measures were five-year overall survival (OS), length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. We calculated pooled hazard ratio (HR), weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 1,466 patients (618 endoscopic resection and 848 gastrectomy) met inclusion criteria. Five-year OS was similar between endoscopic resection and gastrectomy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.83). Endoscopic resection was associated with shorter hospital stays (WMD, -6.94; 95% CI: -7.59 to -6.29) and reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

While five-year OS is similar between endoscopic resection and gastrectomy, endoscopic resection offers a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications than gastrectomy for treating early gastric cancer. Endoscopic resection is a reasonable treatment for early gastric cancer with a negligible risk of lymph node metastasis.

Demonstrating Value: A Case Study of Enhanced Recovery

An enhanced recovery after surgery strategy will be increasingly adopted in the era of value-based care. The various elements in each enhanced recovery after surgery protocol are likely to add value to the overall patient surgical journey. Although the evidence varies considerably based on type of surgery and patient group, the team-based approach of care should be universally applied to patient care. This article provides an overview of up-to-date techniques and methodology for enhanced recovery, including an overview of value-based care, delivery, and the evidence base supporting enhanced recovery after surgery.

Towards curative therapy in gastric cancer: Faraway, so close!

Although recent diagnostic and therapeutic advances have substantially improved the survival of patients with gastric cancer (GC), the overall prognosis is still poor. Surgery is the only curative treatment and should be performed in experienced centers. Due to high relapse following surgery, complementary and systemic treatment aimed at eradicating micrometastasis should be performed in most cases. Cytotoxic treatments are effective in downstaging locally advanced cancer, but different sensitivities and toxicities probably exist in different GC subtypes. Current treatment protocols are based primarily on clinical data and histological features, but molecular biomarkers that would allow for the prediction of treatment responses are urgently needed. Understanding how host factors are responsible for inter-individual variability of drug response or toxicity will also contribute to the development of more effective and less toxic treatments.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, it has been unclear whether laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LTG) was a suitable treatment for elderly patients (aged 65 years and older) with gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to clarify the value of LTG in the elderly using a propensity score matching method.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 675 elderly gastric cancer patients who underwent total gastrectomies at our institution between January 2002 and February 2012. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare the LTG and open total gastrectomy (OTG) groups. The operation results, hospital courses, and survival rates were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

The LTG group had a significantly shorter mean operating time (194 vs. 267 min, P < 0.001) and significantly less intraoperative blood loss (92 vs. 204 ml, P < 0.001). The total number of collected lymph nodes was similar in the two groups. Postoperatively, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the LTG group than in the OTG group (median 14.4 vs. 16.6 days; P = 0.001); however, no significant intergroup differences were found in morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was similar between the two groups (P = 0.517).

CONCLUSIONS

LTG for elderly gastric cancer is feasible and safe with acceptable oncologic outcomes. Therefore, patient age alone should not be considered a contraindication in the decision between LTG and OTG treatment options. A high-volume prospective study is needed to confirm this rationale.