Laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is an ugly duckling with unsolved concerns: oncological safety, late complications, and functional benefit

Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with regard to outcomes, including efficacy and safety, in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Original English-language articles comparing LPG and LTG for proximal gastric cancer up to November 2019 were systematically searched in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases by two independent reviewers. Our main endpoints were surgery-related features (operation time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative hospital stay), postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic stenosis, and reflux esophagitis), and oncologic outcomes (5-year overall survival and recurrent cancer).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including a total of 1,282 cases (510 LPG and 772 LTG) were enrolled. Fewer lymph nodes were harvested (WMD = -13.33, 95% CI: -15.66 to -11.00, P < 0.00001) and more postoperative anastomotic stenosis (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.39, P = 0.007) observed in LPG than LTG. There were no significant differences in other explored parameters between the two methods. However, based on a subgroup analysis of digestive tract reconstruction, LPG with esophagogastrostomy (LPG-EG) had shorter operative time (WMD = -42.51, 95% CI: -58.99 to -26.03, P < 0.00001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -79.52, 95% CI: -116.63 to -42.41, P < 0.0001), and more reflux esophagitis (OR = 3.92, 95% CI: 1.56 to 9.83, P = 0.004) than was observed for LTG. There was no difference between LPG performed with the double tract anastomosis/double-flap technique (DT/DFT) and LTG.

CONCLUSION

LPG can be performed as an alternative to LTG for proximal gastric cancer, especially LPG-DT/DFT, with comparable safety and efficacy.

Current status of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy in proximal gastric cancer: Technical details and oncologic outcomes

The incidence of proximal gastric cancer has been increasing continuously. This status has prevailed despite the application of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy as a surgical treatment for early proximal gastric cancer. The widespread adoption and standardization of this surgical procedure as the primary treatment for the abovementioned cancer has been hampered by the lack of consensus on the optimal reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy. In addition, the oncological safety of proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease remains unclear. We reviewed the English-language literature to clarify the current status of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy in proximal gastric cancer. Japanese gastric cancer guidelines have suggested three types of reconstructions for proximal gastrectomy, namely, esophagogastrostomy, double-tract reconstruction, and jejunal interposition. Optimal reconstruction methods remain to be determined because of the lack of adequately performed and well-designed randomized controlled trials. The technical complexity and challenging implementation of reconstruction procedures have resulted in several complications with anastomoses. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the various reconstruction methods and the oncological safety of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for advanced gastric disease.

[Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy as a Surgical Treatment for Upper Third Early Gastric Cancer]

Recently, the incidence of upper third gastric cancer has increased, and with it the number of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures performed has been increasing. However, if ESD is not indicated or non-curable, surgical treatment may be necessary. In the case of lower third gastric cancer, it is possible to preserve the upper part of the stomach; however, in the case of upper third gastric cancer, total gastrectomy is still the standard treatment option, regardless of the stage. This is due to the complications associated with upper third gastric cancer, such as gastroesophageal reflux after proximal gastrectomy rather than oncologic problems. Recently, the introduction of the double tract reconstruction method after proximal gastrectomy has become one of the surgical treatment methods for upper third early gastric cancer. However, since there has not been a prospective comparative study evaluating its efficacy, the ongoing multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (KLASS-05) comparing laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction and laparoscopic total gastrectomy is expected to be important for determining the future of treatment of upper third early gastric cancer.

Laparoscopy-Assisted Proximal Gastrectomy with the Hinged Double Flap Method

BACKGROUND

No standard proximal gastrectomy method for gastric cancer of the upper third of the stomach (UGC) has been established because few of the current methods prevent gastro-esophageal reflux and allow easy postoperative endoscopic surveillance. In the present study, we describe laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with the hinged double flap method (Kamikawa's method) in detail and examine the short- to medium-term outcomes of this approach, which resulted in excellent postoperative function.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2015, 24 patients with early-stage primary UGC underwent laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with the above-mentioned method. The celiac and hepatic nerves were preserved without pyloroplasty. A hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis was produced intracorporeally.

RESULTS

There were no in-hospital deaths, and none of the patients were converted to open surgery. Complications occurred in two patients in the early part of this study (minor anastomotic leakage in one case and an abdominal abscess in the other). None of the patients exhibited symptoms of reflux. Regarding the patients' postoperative endoscopic classifications, 17, 2, and 1 patient were considered to have grade N or M, grade A, and grade B esophagitis, respectively. All of the patients remain alive, and no cases of postoperative bowel obstruction or recurrent cancer have been observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This method can be performed safely and achieves excellent outcomes in terms of preventing gastro-esophageal reflux. It deserves further evaluation in a multi-center clinical study.

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction is superior to laparoscopic total gastrectomy for proximal early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with double tract reconstruction (DTR) is known to reduce reflux symptoms, which is a major concern after proximal gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to compare retrospectively the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing LPG with DTR with those treated by laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG).

METHODS

Ninety-two and 156 patients undergoing LPG with DTR and LTG for proximal stage I gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed for short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the demographics, T-stage, N-stage, and complications between the groups. The LPG with DTR group had a shorter operative time and lower estimated blood loss than the LTG group (198.3 vs. 225.4 min, p < 0.001; and 84.7 vs. 128.3 mL p = 0.001). The incidence of reflux symptoms ≥ Visick grade II did not significantly differ between the groups during a mean follow-up period of 37.2 months (1.1 vs. 1.9%, p = 0.999). The hemoglobin change was significantly lower in the LPG with DTR group compared to in the LTG group in the first and second postoperative years (5.03 vs. 9.18% p = 0.004; and 3.45 vs. 8.30%, p = 0.002, respectively), as was the mean amount of vitamin B₁₂ supplements 2 years after operation (0.1 vs. 3.1 mg, p < 0.001). The overall survival rate was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LPG with DTR maintained comparable oncological safety and anastomosis-related late complications compared to LTG and is preferred over LTG in terms of preventing postoperative anemia and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency.