Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is a well-established surgical technique in treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of LAG versus open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2023 for RCTs comparing LAG versus OG in patients with AGC. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. We performed all statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 and a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs comprising 3827 patients were included. There were no differences in terms of intraoperative complications (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82), number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -0.54 lymph nodes; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.09), or mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.83). LAG was associated with a longer operative time (MD 49.28 minutes; 95% CI 30.88 to 67.69), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -51.24 milliliters; 95% CI -81.41 to -21.06), shorter length of stay (MD -0.83 days; 95% CI -1.60 to -0.06), and higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08 to 5.50). Postoperatively, LAG was also superior to OG in reducing bleeding rates (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86) and time to first flatus (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), with comparable results in anastomotic leakage, wound healing issues, major complications, time to ambulation, or time to first liquid intake. In the long-term analyses at 3 and 5 years, there were no significant differences between LAG and OG in terms of overall survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03) or relapse-free survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LAG may be an effective and safe alternative to OG for treating AGC; albeit, it may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic fistula.

Modified Q-type purse-string suture duodenal stump embedding method for laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study introduced the modified Q-type purse-string suture duodenal stump embedding method, a convenient way to strengthen the duodenum, and compared it to the conventional one to assess its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis examined 612 patients who received laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric Cancer at a single center. The patients were divided into Not Reinforced Group (n = 205) and Reinforced Group (n = 407) according to the surgical approach to the duodenal stump. The reinforced group was further divided into a modified Q-type purse-string suture embedding method group (QM, n = 232) and a conventional suture duodenal stump embedding method group (CM, n = 175) according to the methods of duodenal stump enhancement. Clinicopathological characteristics, operative variables, and short-term complications were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of duodenal stump leakage(DSL) in the Not Reinforced Group was higher compared to the Reinforced Group, although the difference was not statistically significant [2.4% (5/205) vs 0.7% (3/407), p = 0.339]. Additionally, the Not Reinforced Group exhibited a higher rate of Reoperation due to DSL compared to the Reinforced Group [2 (1.0%) vs. 0, p = 0.046], with one patient in the Not Reinforced Group experiencing mortality due to DSL [1 (0.5%) vs 0, p = 0.158]. Subgroup analysis within the Reinforced Group revealed that the modified Q-type purse-string suture embedding group (QM) subgroup demonstrated statistically significant advantages over the conventional suture embedding group (CM) subgroup. QM exhibited shorter purse-string closure times (4.11 ± 1.840 vs. 6.05 ± 1.577, p = 0.001), higher purse-string closure success rates (93.1% vs. 77.7%, p = 0.001), and greater satisfaction with purse-string closure [224 (96.6%) vs 157 (89.7%), p = 0.005]. No occurrences of duodenal stump leakage were observed in the QM subgroup, while the CM subgroup experienced two cases [2 (1.1%)], though the difference was not statistically significant. Both groups did not exhibit statistically significant differences in secondary surgery or mortality related to duodenal stump leakage.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal Stump Leakage (DSL) is a severe but low-incidence complication. There is no statistically significant relationship between the reinforcement of the duodenal stump and the incidence of DSL. However, laparoscopic reinforcement of the duodenal stump can reduce the severity of fistulas and the probability of Reoperation. The laparoscopic Q-type purse-string suture duodenal stump embedding method is a simple and effective technique that can, to some extent, shorten the operation time and enhance satisfaction with purse-string closure. There is a trend towards reducing the incidence of DSL, thereby improving patient prognosis to a certain extent.

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.

[Technique and Study Results of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer]

The aim of this paper was to describe the technique of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma and to present a review of current international studies on this topic.The first part describes and documents a standard laparoscopic gastrectomy for carcinoma. In the second part, after an EMBASE and PubMed search, a total of 123 quality-relevant randomised (RCT) and non-randomised (non-RCT) studies on laparoscopic gastrectomy are identified from a primary total of 3,042 hits by systematic narrowing. The study results are then summarised conclusively for the target criteria of feasibility, outcome, oncological quality, morbidity and mortality.Both, laparoscopic subtotal resection for distal gastric carcinomas and laparoscopic gastrectomy can now be performed safely and with few complications. In a recent literature review of a total of 15 RCTs with 5,576 patients (laparoscopic 2,793 vs. open 2,756), there were no significant differences in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality (R0 and lymph node harvest). Surgical morbidity and mortality were comparable. Patients after laparoscopic surgery showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery with a lower overall morbidity. In contrast, the operating time was significantly longer - by a mean of 45 min - compared to the open technique. The advantages of the laparoscopic technique were equally evident in studies on early gastric carcinoma and advanced carcinomas (>T2).Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma is safe to perform and shows better early postoperative recovery. Complication rates, morbidity and mortality as well as long-term oncological results are comparable with open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in elderly patients: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Scarce research has reported the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in elderly patients. This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in elderly patients.

METHODS

A total of 303 elderly patients who underwent distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer from June 2017 to June 2021 were enrolled. Variables used to calculate propensity score matching included sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, history of diabetes, and history of hypertension. The statistical significance of continuous variables was tested using an independent sample t test. chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test were used for the evaluation of 3-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 248 patients were included for analysis (laparoscopic = 124, open = 124). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group showed significant advantages in estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), pain scale on the first postoperative day (P = 0.002), time to first flatus (P = 0.004), time to first liquid diet (P = 0.005), hospital stays (P < 0.001), and total complications (P = 0.011), but devoted much more operation time (P < 0.001). No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in 3-year recurrence-free survival (P = 0.315) or overall survival (P = 0.159).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery had the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster postoperative recovery in distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric, indicating that laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is safe and effective for treating elderly patients with distal gastric cancer.

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

Research progress of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer

Since the first laparoscopic radical surgery for early gastric cancer 30 years ago, there has been a gradual shift from "open" to "minimally invasive" surgery for gastric cancer. This transition is due to advancements in refined anatomy, enlarged field of view, faster recovery, and comparable oncological outcomes. Several high-quality clinical studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy in the treatment of both early and locally advanced gastric cancer. The role of perioperative chemotherapy in managing locally advanced gastric cancer has been widely recognized, and there have been continuous breakthroughs in the exploration of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for perioperative treatment. Additionally, the application of indocyanine green near-infrared imaging technology, 3D laparoscopic technology, and robotic surgery systems has further improved the accuracy and minimally invasive nature of gastric cancer surgeries. Looking ahead, the field of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is expected to become more standardized, resulting in a significant enhancement in the quality of life for gastric cancer patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for T4a Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (GC) has been applied more frequently worldwide but is still controversial for patients with serosal invasion (T4a). This study compared short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy (LDG) with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for T4a GC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 472 patients with T4a gastric adenocarcinoma in the lower or middle third of the stomach: 231 underwent LDG and 241 underwent ODG between 2013 and 2020. Short-term outcomes included operative characteristics and complications. Long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

The PSM strategy resulted in 294 patients (147 in each group). The LDG group had a significantly longer operating time (mean: 200 vs 190 min, p = 0.001) but reduced blood loss (mean: 50 vs 100 ml, p = 0.001). The LDG group had a higher rate of any postoperative complication (23.1% vs 12.2%, p = 0.021) but most were classified as grades I-II according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Grade III-V complications were similar between groups. Five-year OS was 69% versus 60% (p = 0.109) and 5-year DFS was 58% vs 53% (p = 0.3) in LDG and ODG groups, respectively. For tumor size < 5 cm, LDG was better in reduction of blood loss, postoperative hospital length of stay, and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LDG is feasible and safe for patients with T4a GC and is comparable to ODG regarding short- and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, LDG can be a favorable option for T4a GC smaller than 5 cm.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients with GLIM-defined malnutrition

PURPOSE

Malnutrition is common in the patients with gastric cancer. Radical gastrectomy remained the primary strategy of curable treatment for gastric cancer. This study is performed to explore the effect of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy on clinical outcomes in gastric cancer patients with malnutrition.

METHODS

Gastric cancer patients with GLIM-defined malnutrition between 2014 and 2019 at our center were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different type of surgery. Propensity score match analysis was used to balance the clinicopathologic characteristics of two groups. Postoperative outcomes and survival were compared. Multivariate analysis was used to independent risk factors of complication, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Compared with patients underwent open radical gastrectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy had lower rate of total, surgical and severe complications. They also had shorter postoperative hospital stay with better OS and DFS. Hypoalbuminemia (P = 0.003) was the independent risk factor of complications. Old age (≥75, P = 0.035) and TNM stage (III: P < 0.001, II: P = 0.015) were the independent risk factors of OS. Combined resection (P = 0.003) and TNM stage (III: P < 0.001, II: P = 0.001) posed independent risk factors of lacking DFS. Laparoscopic surgery proved to be the independent protective factor of complications (P = 0.014), OS (P < 0.001) and DFS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy was relative safe and showed favorable outcomes in malnourished gastric cancer patients.

Laparoscopic vs. open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who exclusively underwent distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

Data in published meta-analyses that included different gastrectomy types and mixed tumor stages prevented an accurate comparison between LDG and ODG. Recently, several RCTs that compared LDG with ODG included AGC patients specifically for distal gastrectomy, with D2 lymphadenectomy being reported and updated with the long-term outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs for comparing LDG with ODG for advanced distal gastric cancer. Short-term surgical outcomes and mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival were compared. The Cochrane tool and GRADE approach were used for evaluating the quality of evidence (Prospero registration ID: CRD42022301155).

Results

Five RCTs consisting of a total of 2,746 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in terms of intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, severe postoperative complications, R0 resection, D2 lymphadenectomy, recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival, intraoperative blood transfusion, time to first liquid diet, time to first ambulation, distal margin, reoperation, mortality, or readmission between LDG and ODG. Operative times were significantly longer for LDG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 49.2 min, p < 0.05], whereas harvested lymph nodes, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, and proximal margin were lower for LDG (WMD -1.3, p < 0.05; WMD -33.6 mL, p < 0.05; WMD -0.7 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.2 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.4 mm, p < 0.05). Intra-abdominal fluid collection and bleeding were found to be less after LDG. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Conclusions

Data from five RCTs suggest that LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC has similar short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival to ODG when performed by experienced surgeons in hospitals contending with high patient volumes. It can be concluded that RCTs should highlight the potential advantages of LDG for AGC.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, registration number CRD42022301155.

L. Wijnhoven B. Evolution of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer in the East and West

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has evolved differently in Eastern and Western countries. Feasibility, safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy were addressed step-by-step by several randomized controlled trials from the East. Few phase III studies were published from the West that largely did not show a difference between the laparoscopic and open approach. Despite this, laparoscopic gastrectomy is seen as the standard for the surgical treatment of early and advanced gastric cancer in many European countries. Here, we review and comment on some important studies on laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer from Eastern and Western countries and also comment on current and future challenges.

Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I² ≤ 50%).

RESULTS

A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I²=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I²=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I²=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I²=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=-1.51, 95% CI [-2.29, -0.74], I²=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=-0.34, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.12], I²=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=-0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.04], I²=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI [-.26, -0.01], I²=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.07], I²=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=-0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04], I²=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-1.26, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.53], I²=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I²=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I²=0%, p=0.64).

CONCLUSION

LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

A Robotic Completely Intercorporeal Jejunal Pouch Reconstruction after Gastrectomy

Robotic surgery is increasingly gaining importance. While initial results suggest an advantage of the robotic over the minimally invasive approach in patients with gastric cancer, definitive proof of its superiority has yet to be provided. There are numerous approaches to recreate a gastric reservoir after a total gastrectomy. However, a major disadvantage of most conventional reconstructions are long term effects such as dumping syndrome, afferent loop syndrome and poor nutrition intake with severe impact on the patient quality of life. The jejunal pouch reconstruction is a beneficial reconstruction, which provides a larger reservoir capacity after gastrectomy and prevents anastomotic stenosis and dumping syndrome. The completely intercorporeal approach with a Pfannenstiel incision instead of an unfavorable midline incision can potentially decrease delayed complications such as incision hernias. With the increased deployment of robotic surgery, a complete intercorporeal reconstruction is now possible without major increase in operating time or further technical weak points. We provide for the first time a detailed technical explanation of the completely intercorporeal robotic jejunal pouch reconstruction after gastrectomy.

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

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

Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765)

INTRODUCTION

The only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00025765.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.

METHODS

A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in elderly patients ≥ 80 years old

BACKGROUND

As the incidence of gastric cancer increases in elderly patients worldwide, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for elderly patients with gastric cancer is also increasing. However, whether LG is an optimal surgical modality for elderly patients with gastric cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of LG for elderly patients ≥ 80 years old with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients who received curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2003 to 2015 were enrolled in the study. They were divided into the LG in elderly patients aged over 80 years (LG-E) group, open gastrectomy (OG) in elderly patients (OG-E) group, and LG in non-elderly patients < 80 years (LG-NE) group. Patients' demographics and short- and long-term outcomes, such as postoperative complications and 5-year survival rate, were compared between the three groups, retrospectively.

RESULTS

The LG-E, OG-E, and LG-NE groups comprised 45, 43, and 329 patients, respectively. In the comparison between the LG-E and OG-E groups, the incidence of distal gastrectomy (DG) and the proportions of patients with pathological tumor stage T1, pathological N0, and final stage I were significantly higher in the LG-E versus OG-E group (89 vs. 56%, 76% vs. 16%, 82% vs. 37%, and 84% vs. 35%, p < 0.01, respectively). Blood loss and the incidence of overall postoperative complications in the LG-E group were significantly lower than those in the OG-E group (40 vs. 240 g, p < 0.01, and 29% vs. 53%, p < 0.05, respectively). Although the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was not significantly different between the two groups, the 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate was significantly higher in the LG-E group versus OG-E group (93% vs. 78%, p < 0.05). Overall comorbidities were significantly higher in the LG-E group versus LG-NE group, but there were no significant differences in short-term outcomes between the two groups. Further, although the 5-year OS rate was significantly lower in the LG-E group versus LG-NE group (67% vs. 87%, p < 0.01), there was no significant difference between the two groups in 5-year DSS rate.

CONCLUSION

LG is technically and oncologically safe for the treatment of gastric cancer in both elderly patients aged ≥ 80 years and the non-elderly and can be an optimal surgical modality for elderly patients with gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

The Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

The effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to contrast the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until December 2021 for randomized controlled trial-enrolled patients undergoing LG or OG for the treatment of AGC. Short-term outcomes were overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, number of retrieved lymph node, surgical time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and short-term mortality. Long-term outcomes were survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Results

A total of 12 trials involving 4,101 patients (2,059 in LG group, 2,042 in OG group) were included. No effect on overall postoperative complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05, p = 0.12, I² = 34%) and anastomotic leakage (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.95, p = 0.30, I² = 0%) was found. Compared with the open approach, patients receiving LG had fewer blood loss (MD -54.38, 95% CI -78.09 to -30.67, p < 0.00001, I² = 90%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.08 to -0.42, p = 0.003, I² = 86%). However, the LG was associated with a lower number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.27, p = 0.008, I² = 0%) and longer surgical time (MD 40.87, 95% CI 20.37 to 54.44, p < 0.00001, I² = 94%). Furthermore, there were no differences between LG and OG groups in short-term mortality and survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Conclusions

LG offers improved short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stays and fewer blood loss, with comparable postoperative complications, short-term mortality, and survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years when compared to the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LG in patients with AGC.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD 42021297141).

Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries, the use of minimally invasive techniques has not attained the same widespread acceptance for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its feasibility and oncological adequacy. We aimed to examine the safety and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic technique with radical intent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer by comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy at two Western regional institutions. Methods: The trial was designed as a retrospective comparative matched case-control study for postoperative pathological diagnoses of locally advanced gastric carcinoma. Between January 2015 and September 2021, 120 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited and compared with 120 patients who received open gastrectomy. In order to obtain a comparison that was as homogeneous as possible, the equal control group of pairing (1:1) patients submitted to open gastrectomy who matched those of the laparoscopic group was statistically generated by using a propensity matched score method. The following potential confounder factors were aligned: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidity, ASA, adjuvant therapy, tumour location, type of gastrectomy, and pT stage. Patient demographics, operative findings, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the case-control study, the two groups were clearly comparable with respect to matched variables, as was expected given the intentional primary selective criteria. No statistically significant differences were revealed in overall complications (16.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.489), rate of reoperation (3.3% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.714), and mortality (4.2% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.987) within 30 days. Pulmonary infection and wound complications were observed more frequently in the OG group (0.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01, for each of these two categories). Anastomotic and duodenal stump leakage occurred in 5.8% of the patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy and in 3.3% after open procedure (p = 0.072). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time (212 vs. 192 min, p < 0.05) but shorter postoperative length of stay (9.1 vs. 11.6 days, p < 0.001). The mean number of resected lymph nodes after D2 dissection (31.4 vs. 33.3, p = 0.134) and clearance of surgical margins (97.5% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.432) were equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 nodal dissection appears to be safe and feasible in terms of perioperative morbidity for locally advanced gastric cancer, with comparable oncological equivalency with respect to traditional open surgery.

Comparison of estimated treatment effects between randomized controlled trials, case-matched, and cohort studies on laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In actual surgical research, case-matched studies are frequently conducted as an alternative to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, it is still unclear what differences there are between RCTs and case-matched studies in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and clarifying them is a very important clinical issue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate estimated treatment effects between RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies regarding laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases for studies that compared LDG versus open distal gastrectomy for AGC published from the inception of the databases until July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.3 software program from the Cochrane Collaboration, and six short-term outcomes and three long-term outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 13698 patients were included. There was no difference in estimated treatment effects between RCTs and case-matched studies for all outcomes except for the number of retrieved lymph nodes and postoperative complications. In terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and recurrence, observational studies tended to overestimate the treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

The estimated treatment effects of LDG for AGC in the case-matched study were almost the same as in the RCTs. However, to assess the true magnitude of the treatment effect, the design and actual implementation of the analysis must be critically evaluated.

Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Techniques for Gastric Cancer Surgery in the United States

Background

This study investigated national implementation patterns and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) in gastric cancer surgery in the United States.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2008-2018. The MIG versus open gastrectomy approach was correlated with hospital factors, patient characteristics, and complications.

Results

There was more than a fivefold increase in MIG from 5.8% in 2008 to 32.9% in 2018 (nptrend < 0.001). Patients undergoing MIG had a lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p = 0.001). On risk adjusted analysis, black patients (AOR = 0.77, p = 0.024) and patients with income below 25th percentile (AOR = 0.80, p = 0.018) were less likely to undergo MIG. When these analyses were limited to minimally invasive capable centers only, these differences were not observed. Hospitals in the upper tertile of gastrectomy case volume, Northeast, and urban teaching centers were more likely to perform MIG. Overall, MIG was associated with a 0.7-day decrease in length of stay, reduced risk adjusted mortality rates (AOR = 0.58, p = 0.05), and a $4,700 increase in total cost.

Conclusions

In this national retrospective study, we observe socioeconomic differences in patients undergoing MIG, which is explained by hospital level factors in MIG utilization. We demonstrate that MIG is associated with a lower mortality compared with open gastrectomy. Establishing MIG as a safe approach to gastric cancers and understanding regional differences in implementation patterns can inform delivery of equitable high-quality health care.

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.

Outcomes of Distal Gastrectomy for Elderly Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: Comparison With Non-Elderly Patients and the Utility of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Elderly Patients

Background

As the elderly population increases, cases of elderly advanced gastric cancer (AGC) also increase. This study aims to investigate the safety and utility of curative gastrectomy, as well as the efficacy of laparoscopic gastrectomy, for these elderly patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the surgical outcomes of patients with cStage IB-III AGC who underwent distal gastrectomy (DG) with D2 lymph node dissection in our institution. We compared the results between elderly patients (&gt;75 years) and non-elderly patients (&lt;75 years). We further divided the elderly patients into 2 groups: those who underwent laparoscopic DG (LDG) and those who underwent open DG (ODG). Further, we compared the results of the 2 groups.

Results

From January 2014 to March 2019, 84 patients underwent DG with D2 lymph node dissection for cStage IB-III AGC (52 elderly patients and 32 non-elderly patients). ASA was significantly higher in elderly patients; however, there was no significant difference in surgical outcomes nor in overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the 2 groups. Among 52 elderly patients, 19 had LDG, whereas 33 had ODG. The LDG group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay and a significantly less amount of blood loss. There was no significant difference in RFS and OS between these 2 groups.

Conclusions

Safety and oncologic curability may be achieved in elderly patients with AGC. LDG may be safely performed as ODG in elderly patients with AGC and it is expected to benefit them by achieving minimally invasive surgery.

Long-term and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced gastric cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature search on the EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant available articles published between the time of the databases' inception and July 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 14,689 patients were included in the 41 studies identified. A total of 6976 patients were in an laparoscopic approach group (LG) and 7713 patients were in an open approach group (OG). The meta-analysis showed that in randomized control trials (RCTs), LG were better than OG in terms of estimated blood loss, time to oral intake and time to first flatus while the operation time and proximal resection margin (PRM) were significantly worse in LG than in OG. In the non-RCTs, LG had shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, less intraoperative transfusion, less time to oral intake, time to first flatus, time to ambulation; less overall or serious complications; and better 3-year and 5-year overall or disease-free survival (DFS). Operation times and PRM were significantly worse for LGs.

CONCLUSION

The safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for AGC is not inferior to that of traditional open surgery, and to a certain extent, can reduce trauma, facilitate recovery, and be validated in RCTs and non-RCTs. In the real-world cohort, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer achieved a better survival rate and DFS rate. However, to evaluate the efficacy of these two methods more comprehensively, high-quality randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up times are still needed.

Efficacy of Omentum-Preserving Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Complete omentectomy is considered to be essential in the radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC), but its clinical benefit remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of omentum-preserving gastrectomy (OPG) for patients with GC.

Methods

Studies comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of OPG and gastrectomy with complete omentectomy (GCO) for GC up to March 2021 were systematically searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. A pooled analysis was performed for the available data regarding the baseline features, surgical and oncological outcomes. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Quality evaluation and publication bias were also conducted.

Results

Nine studies with a total of 3335 patients (1372 in the OPG group and 1963 in the GCO group) undergoing gastrectomy were included. In the pooled analysis, the baseline data in two groups were all comparable (p > 0.05). However, the OPG group was associated with shorter operative time (MD = −18.67, 95% CI = −31.42 to −5.91, P = 0.004) and less intraoperative blood loss (MD = −38.09, 95% CI = −53.78 to −22.41, P < 0.00001) than the GCO group. However, the number of dissected lymph nodes (MD = 2.16, 95% CI = −0.61 to 4.93, P = 0.13), postoperative complications (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.15, p = 0.47), overall recurrence rate (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.06, p = 0.14), peritoneal recurrence rate (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.29, p = 0.60), 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.86 to 2.27, p = 0.18), and 5-year RFS rate (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.55, p = 0.12) of the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

OPG might be an oncologically safe procedure with better surgical outcomes for patients with GC than GCO. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this benefit.

Laparoscopic Compared with Open D2 Gastrectomy on Perioperative and Long-Term, Stage-Stratified Oncological Outcomes for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the IMIGASTRIC Database

Simple Summary

Gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of both advanced and early gastric cancer with lymph node metastasis. The performance of D2 lymphadenectomy is technically challenging and represents a key factor in improving patients’ survival. For these reasons, the execution of gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy using the traditional open surgical technique still represents the most widespread approach and, based on current international guidelines, the indication for laparoscopic surgery is limited to early gastric cancer that does not require a D2 lymphadenectomy. The present study aimed to investigate the use of laparoscopic versus open surgical approaches in performing gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for cancer in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and long-term survival. The study was conducted using the data collected in the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer (IMIGASTRIC) international database.

Abstract

Background: The laparoscopic approach in gastric cancer surgery is being increasingly adopted worldwide. However, studies focusing specifically on laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy are still lacking in the literature. This retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: The protocol-based, international IMIGASTRIC (International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer) registry was queried to retrieve data on patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2000 to December 2014. Eleven predefined, demographical, clinical, and pathological variables were used to conduct a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to investigate intraoperative and recovery outcomes, complications, pathological findings, and survival data between the two groups. Predictive factors of long-term survival were also assessed. Results: A total of 3033 patients from 14 participating institutions were selected from the IMIGASTRIC database. After 1:1 PSM, a total of 1248 patients, 624 in the laparoscopic group and 624 in the open group, were matched and included in the final analysis. The total operative time (median 180 versus 240 min, p < 0.0001) and the length of the postoperative hospital stay (median 10 versus 14.8 days, p < 0.0001) were longer in the open group than in the laparoscopic group. The conversion to open rate was 1.9%. The proportion of patients with in-hospital complications was higher in the open group (21.3% versus 15.1%, p = 0.004). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the laparoscopic approach (median 32 versus 28, p < 0.0001), and the proportion of positive resection margins was higher (p = 0.021) in the open group (5.9%) than in the laparoscopic group (3.2%). There was no significant difference between the groups in five-year overall survival rates (77.4% laparoscopic versus 75.2% open, p = 0.229). Conclusion: The adoption of the laparoscopic approach for gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy shortened the length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative complications with respect to the open approach. The five-year overall survival rate after laparoscopy was comparable to that for patients who underwent open D2 resection. The types of surgical approaches are not independent predictive factors for five-year overall survival.

Adjuvant chemotherapy is an additional option for locally advanced gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a retrospective control study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the long-term efficacy of different durations of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 428 patients with stage II-III gastric cancer who underwent D2 gastrectomy between 2009 and 2016. Patients were divided into four groups according to the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy, including 0 week (no adjuvant, group A), 20 to 24 weeks (completed 7-8 cycles every 3 weeks or 10-12 cycles every 2 weeks, group B), and 12 to18 weeks (completed 4-6 cycles every 3 weeks or 6-9 cycles every 2 weeks, group C), and less than 12 weeks (received up to 3 cycles every 3 weeks or 5 cycles every 2 weeks, group D). The chemotherapy regimens included XELOX, SOX, and FOLFOX. 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The 5-year OS rates for groups A, B, C, and D were 52.3, 73.7, 72.0, and 53.3%, respectively, and the 5-year DFS rates were 50.0, 68.0, 65.4, and 50.0%, respectively. OS and DFS were higher in group B than in groups A and D. Similarly, patients in group C were more likely to have higher OS and DFS than those in groups A and D. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in OS and DFS between groups B and C. The multivariate analysis confirmed with high statistical significance the efficacy of complete courses of adjuvant chemotherapy, and, among them, the similar impact of 4-6/6-9 and 7-8/10-12 cycles, resulting in similar HRs vs Group A (0.52 and 0.42, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce toxicity and maintain efficacy, XELOX or SOX chemotherapy regimens administered for 4-6 cycles every 3 weeks or FOLFOX regimen for 6-9 cycles every 2 weeks might be a favorable option for patients with stage II-III gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. Prospective multicenter clinical trials with adequate sample sizes are necessary to verify these findings.

Impact of neoadjuvant therapy followed by laparoscopic radical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection in Western population: A multi-institutional propensity score-matched study

Background and Objectives

In the setting of a minimally invasive approach, we aimed to compare short and long‐term postoperative outcomes of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) + surgery or upfront surgery in Western population.

Methods

All consecutive patients from six Italian and one Serbian center with locally advanced gastric cancer who had undergone laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were selected between 2005 and 2019. After propensity score‐matching, postoperative morbidity and oncologic outcomes were investigated.

Results

After matching, 97 patients were allocated in each cohort with a mean age of 69.4 and 70.5 years. The two groups showed no difference in operative details except for a higher conversion rate in the NAT group (p = 0.038). The overall postoperative complications rate significantly differed between NAT + surgery (38.1%) and US (21.6%) group (p = 0.019). NAT was found to be related to a higher risk of postoperative morbidity in patients older than 60 years old (p = 0.013) but not in patients younger (p = 0.620). Conversely, no difference in overall survival (p = 0.41) and disease‐free‐survival (p = 0.34) was found between groups.

Conclusions

NAT appears to be related to a higher postoperative complication rate and equivalent oncological outcomes when compared with surgery alone. However, poor short‐term outcomes are more evident in patients over 60 years old receiving NAT.

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.

Landscape of interventional clinical trials involving gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) is the third most common cause of malignancy associated mortality globally. The cornerstone of curative treatment involves surgical gastrectomy. In this study, we explore clinical trials involving gastrectomy for GC, highlighting inadequacies and underlining promising surgical interventions and strategies.

Materials and methods

On 1 May 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov was explored for interventional trials related to gastrectomy for GC, without adding limitations for location or date. All data pertaining to the trials were collected. Characteristics such as phase, duration, enrolment size, location, treatment allocation, masking and primary endpoint were analysed.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight clinical trials met the search criteria. Clinical trials were performed in only 14 countries; most of them occurring in China. Most trials (33%) were still in the recruiting phase. On average, the length of trials was 3.9 years. Most trials had parallel assignment, were randomised and masked. The primary endpoint which was mostly commonly studied was overall survival (33%). The most common intervention studied is laparoscopic gastrectomy in 43 (31%) trials.

Conclusions

Our study exposed a small number of trials, publication rate, absence of geographic variety in clinical trials involving gastrectomy for GC. Adequate management of trial design can help decrease duration and increase validity of results. More trials comparing different surgical techniques are needed to update the surgical practice of gastrectomy for GC.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

Enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic gastrectomy in gastric cancer: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has been highlighted for its safety and better short-term clinical outcomes in treating gastric cancer. However, only a slight reduction of the post-operative hospital stay was observed in gastric cancer patients undergoing LDG with conventional perioperative management, compared to patients undergoing open surgery. Thus, an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for LDG is needed to further reduce the post-operative hospital stays. This prospective, open-label, single-arm cohort study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the ERAS program for gastric cancer patients undergoing LDG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with gastric cancer indicated for LDG were consecutively enrolled from December 2016 to January 2018. The ERAS program included short fasting time, effective perioperative pain management, early, goal-oriented ambulation, and oral feeding. The safety assessment was the incidence of post-operative complications, mortality, and readmission in 30 days. The primary efficacy assessment was recovery time defined by post-operative hospital stays and rehabilitative rate on post-operative day 4.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight of 114 patients were finally enrolled. The incidence of post-operative complication, mortality, and readmission in 30 days was 20. 4%, 0%, 7.1%, respectively. The Clavien-Dindo grade III complication rate was 6.1%, while the pulmonary complication rate was 1% only. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (5.0-7.0 days), and the rehabilitative rate on post-operative day 4 was 78%.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS program might be optimal perioperative management for gastric cancer patients after LDG without compromising safety.

TRIAL NUMBER

NCT03016026.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-invasive gastric cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Whether laparoscopic gastrectomy is suitable for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer remains controversial. We performed this study to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with after open gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 906 consecutive patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer from January 2004 to December 2014 in our center, who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching, 334 patients were included in each group. Surgical conditions and short- and long-term results were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with less estimated blood loss and longer operation time, while the number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had an earlier time to first flatus, first diet, and first ambulation and were discharged earlier. Overall and pulmonary postoperative complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group. With a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 39.3% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 34.3% in the open gastrectomy group, and the 5-year disease-free survival was 36.4% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 32.7% in the open gastrectomy group. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with better 5-year overall survival in patients aged ≥60 years. The overall recurrence rates and patterns were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an alternative surgical approach for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer in terms of short-term outcomes and long-term survival, and it might be more advantageous for certain populations.

Surgical and oncological efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer by propensity score matching: a retrospective comparative study

Purpose

The application of laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for resectable gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial compared with open total gastrectomy (OTG), especially for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients according to the inconsistent results demonstrated in the previous studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes between LATG and OTG in a population with more than 80% AGC patients by applying propensity score matching (PSM) method.

Methods

The data of 365 clinical stage I–III GC cases who underwent total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy were retrospectively collected from January 2011 to April 2018 in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery IV of Peking University Cancer Hospital. Propensity scores were generated through taking all covariates into consideration and 131 pairs of patients receiving either LATG or OTG were matched. Intraoperative, postoperative, and survival parameters were compared in the matched groups accordingly. Risk factors for postoperative complications and overall survival were further analyzed.

Results

Patient characteristics in the LATG and OTG groups were well balanced after PSM. LATG showed advantages with respect to shorter time to ambulation, first flatus, and first whole liquid diet intake. No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications as well as overall survival in terms of different pathological stage. Older age was found as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications, and pathological stage for overall survival as well.

Conclusion

LATG appears to have comparable surgical and oncological safety with OTG by experienced surgeons.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer: Case series of initial experience

Background

In the last decade's robotic gastrectomy (RG) has increasingly widespread as a valid minimally invasive option for treatment of gastric cancer. In literature, evidence of its routine use is not yet well established. The aims of this study are to report our initial experience and to present possible advantages of our hybrid operative technique for subtotal gastrectomy.

Materials and methods

Retrospectively, we analyzed data from 41 patients (22 male and 19 female) who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (RALG) with D2 lymphadenectomy using the da Vinci XI robotic system. Inclusion criteria were gastric cancer in the middle or lower portion of the stomach amenable of radical subtotal gastrectomy without preoperative suspicion of positive lymph-nodes or other organs involving and distant metastasis. All the procedures were performed by attending surgeons.

Results

The mean operative time was 270 min with one case of conversion to open surgery. The mean age was 71.4 (IQR 68.2-76.8) with 43.9% of patients classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score ≥3. The median of lymph-nodes retrieved was 25 (IQR 19-35). No intra-operative complications occurred. Time to resume a soft diet was 5 days. Patients were hospitalized a median of 7 days. According to pathological AJCC-TNM, 21 patients were classified as advanced gastric cancer. Post-operative morbidity was recorded in 9 patients (21.9%) with major complications requiring surgical operation in 4 patients (9.8%). Elevated ASA score, fewer lymph-nodes retrieved and ICU recovery requirements were significant increased in patients with major complications.

Conclusion

The preliminary results demonstrated that robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy is safe and feasible. In particular, we found that the da Vinci platform improves surgeon abilities to perform an adequate lymphadenectomy and digestive reconstruction. Further studies are necessary to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in minimally invasive treatment of gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about the effects of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival within the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

Studies published from January 1994 to February 2020 that compare LDG and ODG for AGC were identified. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The selection of high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies, MINORS). The short- and long-term outcomes of both procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised of 8 RCTs and 22 NRCTs involving 16,029 patients (7864 LDGs, 8165 ODGs). The recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates for LDG and ODG were comparable. LDG was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.79; P < 0.00001), lower estimated volume of blood loss (WMD -102.21 mL; P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.96 days; P < 0.0001), shorter time to first flatus (WMD -0.54 day; P = 0.0007) and shorter time to first liquid diet (WMD -0.66 day; P = 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved, mortality, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, and time to ambulation were similar. However, LDG was associated with a longer surgical time (WMD 33.57 min; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with AGC when performed by experienced surgeons at high-volume specialized centers.

Application of Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging with Indocyanine Green in Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy

Purpose

Recently, totally laparoscopic gastrectomy has been gradually accepted by surgeons worldwide for gastric cancer treatment. Complete dissection of the lymph nodes and the establishment of the surgical margin are the most important considerations for curative gastric cancer surgery. Previous studies have demonstrated that indocyanine green (ICG)-traced laparoscopic gastrectomy significantly improves the completeness of lymph node dissection. However, it remains difficult to identify the tumor location intraoperatively for gastric cancers that are staged ≤T3. Here, we investigated the feasibility of ICG fluorescence for lymph node mapping and tumor localization during totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

Materials and Methods

Preoperative and perioperative data from consecutive patients with gastric cancer who underwent a totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy were collected and analyzed. The patients were categorized into the ICG (n=61) or the non-ICG (n=75) group based on whether preoperative endoscopic mucosal ICG injection was performed.

Results

The ICG group had a shorter operation time and less intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, significantly more lymph nodes were harvested in the ICG group than the non-ICG group. No pathologically positive margin was found and there was no significant difference in either the proximal or distal surgical margins between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with ICG can be successfully used in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, and it contributes to both the completeness of D2 lymph node dissection and confirmation of the gastric transection line. Well-designed prospective randomized studies are needed in the future to fully validate our findings.

Prediction of the Depth of Tumor Invasion in Gastric Cancer: Potential Role of CT Radiomics

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the value of computed tomography (CT) radiomics for the differentiation between T2 and T3/4 stage lesions in gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 244 consecutive patients with pathologically proven gastric cancer were retrospectively included and split into a training cohort (171 patients) and a test cohort (73 patients). Preoperative arterial phase and portal phase contrast enhanced CT images were retrieved for tumor segmentation and feature extraction by using a dedicated postprocessing software. The random forest method was used to build the classifier models.

RESULTS

The performance of single phase radiomics models were favorable in the differentiation between T2 and T3/4 stage tumors. Arterial phase-based radiomics model exhibited areas under the curve of 0.899 (95% CI: 0.812-0.955) in the training cohort and 0.825 (95% CI: 0.718-0.904) in the test cohort. Portal phase-based radiomics model showed areas under the curve of 0.843 (95% CI: 0.746-0.914) and 0.818 (95% CI: 0.711-0.899) in the training and test cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CT radiomics approach has a potential role in differentiation between T2 and T3/4 stage tumors in gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open approach in gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Additional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been published, and it is necessary to update the systematic review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the meta-analysis to find some proof for the use of LG in AGC and evaluate whether LG is an alternative treatment for AGC.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and high-quality retrospective studies (NRCT) compared LG and OG for AGC, which were published in English between January 2010 and May 2019, were search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge by three authors independently and thoroughly. Some primary endpoints were compared between the two groups, including intraoperative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, first oral intake, first out of bed, post-operative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality, rate of disease recurrence, and 5-year over survival (5-y OS). Besides, considering for this 10-year dramatical surgical material development between 2010 and 2019, we furtherly make the same analysis based on recent studies published between 2016 and 2019.

RESULT

Thirty-six studies were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis, including 5714 cases in LAG and 6094 cases in OG. LG showed longer intraoperative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. The number of harvested lymph nodes, hospital mortality, and tumor recurrence were similar. Postoperative morbidity and 5-y OS favored LG. Furthermore, the systemic analysis of recent studies published between 2016 and 2019 revealed similar result.

CONCLUSION

A positive trend was indicated towards LG. LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC.

Robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a high-capacity center

Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to determine its safety and feasibility.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 51 patients who underwent gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer [cT3-4/N1-3 or macroscopic type 3 (> 80 mm) or type 4] following NAC between November 2009 and January 2018. After excluding two patients who underwent palliative surgery due to peritoneal dissemination, 49 patients were ultimately selected for this cohort study. The patients were then divided into the LG group and open gastrectomy (OG) group, after which the clinicopathological characteristics as well as short- and long-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Compared with the OG group, the LG group demonstrated a significantly lower amount of intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The overall complication rates were 10% (2 of 20 patients) and 24% (7 of 29 patients) in the LG and OG groups (P = 0.277), respectively. No significant differences in 5-year disease-free (LG 44.4% vs. OG 53.3%; P = 0.382) or overall survival rates (LG 46.9% vs. OG 54.0%; P = 0.422) were observed between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the surgical procedure (LG vs. OG) was not an independent risk factor for disease-free (P = 0.645) or overall survival (P = 0.489).

CONCLUSIONS

LG may be a potential therapeutic option for patients with gastric cancer following NAC considering its high success rates and acceptable short- and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic Versus Open D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Case-Matched Comparative Study

Background: The role of the laparoscopic approach to D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resections. Methods: Patients who underwent potentially curative D2 gastrectomy between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were randomly matched on 1:1 basis for age and extent of surgery (total versus subtotal gastrectomy, and additional organ resection). Exclusions included emergency or palliative surgery. The learning curve for laparoscopic resections was included. Analysis was conducted on intention to treat basis. The outcomes were reported as median (range) or per cent as appropriate. Results: Among 78 patients who had undergone potentially curative gastrectomy 36 were matched. The groups were comparable for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin, body mass index, frequency of previous abdominal surgery, anatomic distribution of disease, extent of gastrectomy, need for additional resection, and disease stage. There was one conversion to open surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery required longer operating time (393 versus 218 minutes, P < .001), it was associated with less blood loss (100 versus 200 mL, P = .001) and shorter hospital stay (3.0 versus 7.5 days, P < .001). There were no significant differences in the rates of clinically significant complications, mortality, readmissions, reoperations, lymph node retrieval, and R₁ resections. Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach to potentially curative D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer is associated with less operative trauma and quicker recovery while offering an equivalent oncologic resection.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior.

Aim

To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Methods

Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [− 81.60, − 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = − 1.73, 95% CI = [− 2.21, − 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = − 1.26 days, 95% CI = [− 1.40, − 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = − 1.37 days, 95% CI = [− 2.05, − 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.58 days, 95% CI = [− 0.79, − 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = − 0.50 days, 95% CI = [− 0.90, − 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = − 0.64 days, 95% CI = [− 1.24, − 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval’s trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions.

Conclusion

LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.

Assessment of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are increasingly used to treat locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy or open distal gastrectomy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Between April 23, 2015, and November 16, 2017, a phase 2, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, China. Patients (n = 96) between 18 and 80 years of age with locally advanced gastric cancer (cT2-4aN+M0) who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled and randomized. An as-treated population and a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population were defined for the data analysis.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy or open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with D2 lymphadenectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Secondary end points were surgical radicality, 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, 2-week postoperative recovery indexes, and adjuvant chemotherapy completion status.

Results

In total, 95 patients were eligible for as-treated analyses (LADG: 45, of whom 13 were female [29%], with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 50, of whom 16 were female [32%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years) and mITT analyses (LADG: 47, of whom 14 were female [30%], with a median [IQR] age of 59 [52-65] years; ODG: 48, of whom 15 were female [31%], with a median [IQR] age of 61 [55-64] years). In the as-treated analyses, the LADG group had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate than the ODG group (20% vs 46%; P = .007). The postoperative visual analog scale score for pain was 1.2 units lower on postoperative day 2 only in the LADG group (95% CI, -2.1 to -0.3; P = .008). Patients in the LADG group had better adjuvant chemotherapy completion (adjusted odds ratio, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.63-11.80; P = .003) and were less likely to terminate adjuvant chemotherapy because of adverse effects (10 [22%] vs 21 [42%]; P = .04). The mITT analyses showed similar results to as-treated analyses.

Conclusions and Relevance

This trial found that LADG appears to offer the benefits of better postoperative safety and adjuvant chemotherapy tolerance compared with ODG for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02404753.

Laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: to be or not to be

The incidence of proximal gastric cancer has increased in both the East and the West. Although some novel reconstructions like double-tract or double-flap anti-reflux procedure related to proximal gastrectomy are promising, total radical gastrectomy still accounts for a significant portion of these procedures. D2 radical gastrectomy is the globally accepted standard surgical procedure for advanced gastric cancer, and lymph node (LN) dissection is considered as the critical point of radical surgery and closely related to the prognosis. The splenic hilar LNs (No. 10) are LNs that need to be removed during standard D2 surgery for proximal and total gastrectomy. Lymphadenectomy does not only provide valuable information on the prognosis of gastric cancer, but the thoroughness of the sweep itself is directly related to postoperative survival. The incidence of splenic hilar LN (No. 10) metastasis rate is not high. Although the LN metastasis pathway around the spleen is complicated, the feasibility of laparoscopic splenic hilar LN dissection in locally advanced gastric cancer has been verified. However, these results are mostly from small volume clinical studies, and the fact is that the dissection of the splenic hilar is technique-demanding even for open surgery. The rational strategy for LN dissection for surgeons is still controversial. For splenic LN dissection in radical gastric cancer surgery, whether to select individualized splenic LN dissection for those patients highly suspected of clinical metastasis or to advocate the evidence-based strategy and neglect dissection in lower risk patients to avoid over-removing of LNs, is a vital question that needs to be clarified.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Background

This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer versus open surgery.

Methods

A comprehensive search for randomized controlled studies that compared laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer published until December 31, 2018, was conducted. Operative outcomes, early postoperative outcomes, and long-term results were analyzed using a random effects model.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials containing a collective total of 2157 patients were included. In comparison with open surgery, laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer showed similar risks of short-term mortality and serious adverse events within 30 days after surgery. Regarding intraoperative outcomes, operative time was increased for the laparoscopic approach, whereas the estimated intraoperative blood loss tended to be less. However, the amount of evidence was low for most outcomes. In addition, the results for the length of hospital stay and time to first flatus did not show statistically significant differences. The number of harvested lymph nodes and compliance with D2 lymphadenectomy did not significantly differ between the two groups, indicating oncological equivalence of both approaches. However, long-term oncological results could not be evaluated due to a lack of relevant data in four of the trials.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy can be performed with equivalent overall short-term morbidity and mortality versus the open approach for locally advanced gastric cancer. However, further well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to assess the possible advantages and risks of the laparoscopic approach as well as the long-term results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-019-1600-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.