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

Can proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction replace total gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

According to the 5th edition of the Japanese Guidelines for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer, proximal gastrectomy is recommended for patients with early upper gastric cancer who can retain the distal half of the residual stomach after R0 resection. However, a large number of recent clinical studies suggest that surgical indications for proximal gastrectomy in the guidelines may be too narrow. Therefore, this meta-analysis included patients with early and advanced gastric cancer and compared short- and long-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups. At the same time, we only had high-quality clinical studies such as propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials, which made our research more authentic and credible.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library up to June 2023, and included treatment outcomes after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The primary results were Early-phase complications(Anastomotic leakage, Anastomotic bleeding, Abdominal abscess, Abdominal infection, Pulmonary infection, Incision infection, Intestinal obstruction, Dumping syndrome, Pancreatic fistula), Late-phase complications(Intestinal obstruction, Anastomosis stricture, Dumping syndrome, Reoperation, Internal hernia, Incidence of endoscopic gastroesophageal reflux), Serious complications (≥ Grade III C-D score), Quality of life[Gastroesophageal reflux symptom evaluation (Visick score)(≥ III), Los Angeles classification(C or D)], Nutritional status(Hemoglobin, Receipt of vitamin B12 supplementation), Oncologic Outcomes(The 5-year overall survival rates). Secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes (Operative time, Estimated blood loss, Postoperative hospital stay, Number of harvested lymph nodes, Gas-passing, Postoperative mortality).The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle‒Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

After screening, 11 studies were finally included, including 1154 patients. Results from the combined literature showed that total gastrectomy had a significant advantage over proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction in mean operating time (MD = 4.92, 95% CI: 0.22∼9.61 P = 0.04). However, meta-analysis results showed that Hemoglobin (MD = 7.12, 95% CI:2.40∼11.84, P = 0.003) and Receipt of vitamin B12 supplementation (OR = 0.12, 95% CI:0.05∼0.26, P < 0.00001) in the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction group were better than those in the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction group. There is no significant difference between the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction group in Early-phase complications(OR = 1.14,95% CI:0.79∼1.64, P = 0.50), Late-phase complications(OR = 1.37,95% CI:0.78∼2.39, P = 0.27), Gastroesophageal reflux symptom evaluation (Visick score)(≥ III)(OR = 0.94,95% CI:0.14∼1.07 P = 0.07), Los Angeles classification(C or D)(OR = 0.33,95% CI:0.01∼8.21, P = 0.50), the 5-year overall survival rates (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.83 ~ 1.23, P = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis is a safe and feasible treatment for upper gastric carcinoma. However, the operating time was slightly longer in the proximal gastrectomy with double-tract group compared to the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group. The two groups were comparable to the total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group in terms of serious complications (≥ Grade III C-D score), early-phase complications, late-phase complications, and quality of life. Although the scope of proximal gastrectomy is smaller than that of total gastrectomy, it does not affect the 5-year survival rate, indicating good tumor outcomes for patients. Compared to total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y group, proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction had higher hemoglobin levels, lower probability of vitamin B12 supplementation, and better long-term efficacy. In conclusion, proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction is considered one of the more rational surgical approaches for upper gastric cancer.

The impact of the length of proximal margin on the prognosis in adenocarcinoma of gastroesophageal junction: A real-world study and strategies

BACKGROUND

The optimal proximal margin (PM) length for Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEJ) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the optimal PM length using an abdominal approach to guide surgical decision-making.

METHODS

A prospective study analyzed 304 consecutive patients diagnosed with Siewert II/III AEJ between January 2019 and December 2021. Total gastrectomy was performed via the abdominal approach, and PM length was measured on fixed gross specimens. X-Tile software determined the optimal PM cut-point based on progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate analyses compared baseline characteristics across PM groups, while survival analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression for assessing the impact of margin length on survival. Multivariable analyses were conducted to adjust for confounding variables.

RESULTS

The study included 264 AEJ cases classified as Siewert II (71.97%) or III (28.03%). The median gross PM length was 1.0 cm (IQR: 0.5 cm-1.5 cm, range: 0 cm-6 cm). PM length ≥1.2 cm was associated with a lower risk of disease progression compared to PM length 0.4 cm on PFS (HR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.84, P = 0.015). Moreover, PM ≥ 1.2 cm improved prognosis in subgroups of T4 or N3, tumor size <4 cm, Siewert II, and Lauren classification.

CONCLUSIONS

For Siewert type II/III AEJ, a proximal margin length ≥1.2 cm (1.65 cm in situ) is associated with improved outcomes. These findings offer valuable insights into the association between PM length and outcomes in Siewert II/III AEJ, providing guidance for surgical approaches and aiding clinical decision-making to enhance patient outcomes.

Adequate gross resection margin length ensuring pathologically complete resection in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

A positive resection margin (RM) is associated with poor survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). However, the adequate RM length to avoid a positive RM remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to examine the RM length required to avoid a positive RM in gastrectomy for GC.

Methods

This systematic review involved all relevant articles identified in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 2023. The incidence of a positive RM related to the RM length and the possible incidence of a positive RM estimated from the discrepancy between the gross and pathological RM length were evaluated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to quantify study quality.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 8983 patients were analyzed. Investigation of the incidence of a positive RM in relation to the RM length showed that a proximal RM length of 6 cm guaranteed a negative RM in gastrectomy. Analyses of the possible incidence of a positive RM revealed that a negative RM would be guaranteed if the proximal RM length was 6 cm in distal gastrectomy, if the esophageal resection length was 2 cm in total gastrectomy for GC without esophageal invasion and 2.5 cm in total or proximal gastrectomy for GC with esophageal invasion or esophagogastric junction cancer, and if the distal RM length was 4 cm in proximal gastrectomy for early GC.

Conclusions

The adequate RM lengths to ensure a pathologically negative RM in each type of gastrectomy for GC were herein suggested.

Safety and effectiveness of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy vs laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For gastric cancer with total gastrectomy, the usual laparoscopic surgical approaches are totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG). Due to its difficult anastomotic technique, the adoption of TLTG is limited. Therefore, surgeons prefer using LATG, which also led to TLTG being somewhat overlooked, so there is no clear conclusion today as to which surgical procedure is more favorable to the patient's recovery. This article aimed to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of the two surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies comparing TLTG and LATG, published up to December 2022, were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. The study outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, anastomosis time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal and distal resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, hospitalization duration, time to first flatus, and postsurgical and anastomotic complications, were compared between these two different surgical procedures. Statistics were analyzed with RevMan 5.4 and Stata 13.1.

RESULTS

Fifteen publications were included in this study. The total sample included 3023 cases. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the two surgical approaches ( P >0.05). Compared with LATG, TLTG led to reduced intraoperative blood loss ( P <0.0001), an increased number of lymphatic node dissections ( P <0.0001), and decreased hospitalization duration ( P =0.002). However, operative time, anastomosis time, pulmonary infection, resection margins, time to first fluid and soft diet, time to first flatus and anastomosis-related complications were no significant difference between TLTG and LATG groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

TLTG did not lead to an increase in overall postoperative complications, which is a reliable surgical approach for treatment of gastric cancer. Moreover, it may reduce harm to patients and enable them to obtain better surgical outcomes.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of the Minimal Proximal Resection Margin in Total Gastrectomy for Siewert II Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of the minimal proximal resection margin (PRM) in total gastrectomy (TG) for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

This study finally included 178 Siewert II advanced AEG patients who underwent TG from January 2017 to September 2020. According to the PRM length, patients were divided into 20-25 mm group and 30-35 mm group. Intraoperative, short-, and long-term postoperative outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The PRM of the 20-25 mm group had significantly less operation time compared with the PRM of the 30-35 mm group (P < .001), but the amount of blood loss, management of the diaphragmatic crura, and the incidence of positive resection margin were not significantly different between two groups (P > .05). In short-term postoperative outcomes, first gas-passing time, gastric-tube removal time, start time of diet, hospitalization, postoperative complications, and body weight loss were similar between two groups (P > .05). During the follow-up, the 3-year overall survival rates and the recurrence rates were not significantly different between the PRM of 20-25 mm and 30-35 mm groups (81.2% vs 83.5%, P = .695; 18.8% vs 15.5%, P = .812, respectively).

CONCLUSION

With less operation time and more preserved esophagus, the minimal PRM length of 20-25 mm could be an appropriate option in TG for patients with Siewert II advanced AEG.

The correlation between the margin of resection and prognosis in esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) has become increasingly common in Western and Asian populations. Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for AEG; however, determining the distance from the upper edge of the tumor to the esophageal margin (PM) is essential for accurate prognosis. Despite the relevance of these studies, most have been retrospective and vary widely in their conclusions. The PM is now widely accepted to have an impact on patient outcomes but can be masked by TNM at later stages. Extended PM is associated with improved outcomes, but the optimal PM is uncertain. Academics continue to debate the surgical route, extent of lymphadenectomy, preoperative tumor size assessment, intraoperative cryosection, neoadjuvant therapy, and other aspects to further ensure a negative margin in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. This review summarizes and evaluates the findings from these studies and suggests that the choice of approach for patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction should take into account the extent of esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy. Although several guidelines and reviews recommend the routine use of intraoperative cryosections to evaluate surgical margins, its generalizability is limited. Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are more likely to increase the R0 resection rate. In particular, intraoperative cryosections and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were found to be more effective for achieving negative resection margins in signet ring cell carcinoma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical Impact of Positive Surgical Margins in Gastric Adenocarcinoma in the Era of Preoperative Therapy

BACKGROUND

Microscopically positive (R1) surgical margins after gastrectomy increase gastric cancer recurrence risk, but optimal management after R1 gastrectomy is controversial. We sought to identify the impact of R1 margins on recurrence patterns and survival in the era of preoperative therapy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma during 1998-2017 at a major cancer center were enrolled. Clinicopathologic factors associated with positive margins were examined, and incidence, sites, and timing of recurrence and survival outcomes were compared between patients with positive and negative margins.

RESULTS

Of 688 patients, 432 (63%) received preoperative therapy. Thirty-four patients (5%) had R1 margins. Compared with patients with negative margins, patients with R1 margins more frequently had aggressive clinicopathologic features, such as linitis plastica (odds ratio [OR] 7.79, p < 0.001) and failure to achieve cT downstaging with preoperative treatment (OR 5.20, p = 0.005). The 5 year overall survival (OS) rate was lower in patients with R1 margins (6% vs 60%; p < 0.001), and R1 margins independently predicted worse OS (hazard ratio 2.37, 95% CI 1.51-3.75, p < 0.001). Most patients with R1 margins (58%) experienced peritoneal recurrence, and locoregional recurrence was relatively rare in this group (14%). Median time to recurrence was 8.5 months for peritoneal dissemination and 15.7 months for locoregional recurrence.

CONCLUSION

R1 margins after gastrectomy were associated with aggressive tumor biology, high incidence of peritoneal recurrence after a short interval, and poor OS. In patients with R1 margins, re-resection to achieve microscopically negative margins has to be considered with caution.

Hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy in transthoracic single-port assisted laparoscopic esophagogastrectomy for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction with esophageal invasion > 3 cm

BACKGROUND

An optimal method for digestive tract reconstruction (DTR) in laparoscopic radical resection of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not yet been standardized. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy (EJ) technique during transthoracic single-port assisted laparoscopic esophagogastrectomy (TSLE) for Siewert type II AEG with esophageal invasion > 3 cm.

METHODS

The perioperative clinical data and short-term outcomes for patients who underwent TSLE using hand-sewn EJ for Siewert type II AEG with esophageal invasion > 3 cm between March 2019 and April 2022 have been retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were eligible. All 25 patients were successfully operated. None was converted to open surgery or mortality. 84.00% of patients were male and 16.00% were female. The mean age, body mass index (BMI), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score were 67.88 ± 8.10 years, 21.30 ± 2.80 kg/m², and 2.08, respectively. The average incorporated operative and hand-sewn EJ procedural times were 274.92 ± 57.46 and 23.36 ± 3.00 min, respectively. The length of extracorporeal esophageal involvement and proximal margin was 3.31 ± 0.26 cm and 3.12 ± 0.12 cm, respectively. The average time for the first oral feeding and hospital stay were 6 (3-14) and 7 (3-18) days, respectively. Two patients (8.00%) developed postoperative grade IIIa complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, including 1 case of pleural effusion and 1 case of anastomotic leakage, both of whom were cured by puncture drainage.

CONCLUSION

Hand-sewn EJ in TSLE is safe and feasible for Siewert type II AEG. This method can ensure safe proximal margins and could be a good option with an advanced endoscopic suture technique for type II tumor with esophageal invasion > 3 cm.

Required esophageal resection length beyond the tumor boundary to ensure a negative proximal margin for gastric cancer with gross esophageal invasion or esophagogastric junction cancer

BACKGROUND

To obtain a pathologically negative proximal margin (PM) for gastric cancer with gross esophageal invasion (EI) or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, we should transect the esophagus beyond the proximal boundary of gross EI with a safety margin because of a discrepancy between the gross and pathological boundaries of cancer. However, recommendations regarding the esophageal resection length for these cancers have not been established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent proximal or total gastrectomy for gastric cancer with gross EI or EGJ cancer were enrolled. A parameter ΔPM, which corresponded to the length of a discrepancy between the gross and pathological proximal boundary of the tumor, was evaluated. The maximum ΔPM, which corresponded to the minimum length ensuring a pathologically negative PM, was first determined in all patients. Then subgroup analyses according to factors associated with ΔPM ≥ 10 mm were performed to identify alternative maximum ΔPMs.

RESULTS

A total of 289 patients with gastric cancer with gross EI or EGJ cancer were eligible and analyzed in this study. The maximum ΔPM was 25 mm. Clinical tumor (cTumor) size and growth and pathological types were independently associated with ΔPM ≥ 10 mm. In subgroup analyses, the maximum ΔPM was 15 mm for cTumor size ≤ 40 mm and superficial growth type. Furthermore, the maximum ΔPM was 20 mm in the expansive growth type.

CONCLUSIONS

Required esophageal resection lengths to ensure a pathologically negative PM for gastric cancer with gross EI or EGJ cancer are proposed.

Prevention and treatment of a positive proximal margin after gastrectomy for cardia cancer

A tumour-positive proximal margin (PPM) after extended gastrectomy for oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma is observed in approximately 2-20% of patients. Although a PPM is an unfavourable prognostic factor, the clinical relevance remains unclear as it may reflect poor tumour biology. This narrative review analyses the most relevant literature on PPM after gastrectomy for OGJ cancers. Awareness of the risk factors and possible measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of PPM are important. In patients with a PPM, surgical and non-surgical treatments are available but the effectiveness remains unclear.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Predictors of Conversion During Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy for Malignancy

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) for malignancy is increasing. However, risk factors for conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy are poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for, and impact of, conversion during oncologic resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer from 2010 to 2017. Chi-squared test and t-test were used to compare the robotic versus laparoscopic groups. Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Of 6990 patients identified, 5702 (81.6%) underwent a laparoscopic resection and 1288 (18.4%) underwent robotic-assisted resection. Conversion rates were 14.7% and 7.8% for laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, respectively. The robotic approach was associated with lower likelihood of conversion compared to laparoscopic approach (odds ratio [OR] = 0.470, P < 0.001). Other factors predictive of conversion included tumor size >5 cm compared to <2 cm (OR 1.714, P = 0.010), total gastrectomy compared to partial gastrectomy (OR 2.019, P < 0.001), antrum/pylorus (OR 2.345, P < 0.001), and body (OR 2.152, P < 0.001) tumors compared to cardia tumors. Compared to those treated with laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, patients who underwent conversion experienced significantly longer hospital length of stay and higher rates of positive surgical margins.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate compared to robotic gastrectomy. Conversion to open surgery was associated with a significantly longer length of stay and higher rates of positive margins. Identification of risk factors for conversion can aid in appropriate modality selection.

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

Objective

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Impact of Surgical Margins on Overall Survival after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Validation of Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Guidelines on a Western Series

Purpose

No consensus exists on the resection extent needed to ensure oncological safety in gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). This study aims to assess the impact of margin adequacy according to Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) guidelines on overall survival (OS).

Patients and Methods

Patients who underwent surgery for stage I–III GAC at our institution between 2010 and 2017 were included. Margin adequacy according to JGCA, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines was assessed, and their predictive value on OS was evaluated with Harrell’s C-index. Patients were analyzed according to their margins’ adherence to JGCA guidelines, and a propensity score matching (PSM) was run. Indication to either total gastrectomy (TG) or distal gastrectomy (DG) according to each guideline was also assessed.

Results

A total of 279 patients were included, of whom 220 (79%) underwent DG. Adequate margins according to JGCA were obtained in 209 patients (75%). On multivariate analysis, JGCA margin adequacy was independently associated with OS, together with American Society of Anesthesiologist class, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy extent, R0 resection, and postoperative N stage. After PSM, patients with JGCA adequate margins showed better OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and local RFS than patients with JGCA inadequate margins. For 220 DG, JGCA guidelines would have recommended TG in 25 patients (11%), NCCN in 30 (14%), and ESMO in 90 (41%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Adequacy of surgical resection margins to JGCA guidelines leads to improved survival outcomes and allows for a more organ-preserving approach than Western guidelines.

Is proximal gastrectomy indicated for locally advanced cancer in the upper third of the stomach?

AIM

To treat upper third gastric cancer, proximal gastrectomy (PG), a function-preserving procedure, is recommended for early lesions when at least half the distal stomach can be preserved, while total gastrectomy (TG) is standard for locally advanced lesions. Oncological feasibility, when applying PG for such lesions, remains unknown.

METHODS

We reviewed patients undergoing TG for clinical (c) T2-T4 upper third gastric cancer between 2006 and 2015. Preoperative tumor locations were further classified into the cardia, fornix, and gastric body based on endoscopic findings. The metastatic rate and therapeutic value index for lymph node (LN) dissection were determined, and characteristics of patients with distal LN (No. 4d, 5, and 6) metastasis (DLNM) were reviewed. In addition, patients with pathological tumor invasion to the middle third (M) region were investigated.

RESULTS

We studied 167 patients. There were 8 (4.8%) with DLNM and 41 (24.6%) with pathological tumor invasion to the M region. As to regional stations, therapeutic indices for LN dissection at stations No. 4d, 5, 6, and 12a were zero or extremely low. No DLNM was detected in cT2 lesions or cT3/T4 lesions located within the cardia and/or the fornix. In addition, none of the lesions located within the cardia and/or the fornix by preoperative endoscopy extended to the M region in the pathological specimen.

CONCLUSIONS

For upper third gastric cancer, PG without No. 12a dissection might be acceptable for cT2-T4 lesions located within the cardia and/or the fornix when considering the risk of DLNM and cancer-positivity in the distal stump.

Impact of Surgical Margin Status on Survival in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.

METHODS

The present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).

CONCLUSION

R1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.

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

PURPOSE

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, and it is responsible for 7.7% of all cancer deaths. Despite advances in the field of oncology, where radiotherapy, neo and adjuvant chemotherapy may improve the outcome, the only treatment with curative intent is represented by surgery as part of a multimodal therapy. Two concepts may be adopted in appropriate cases, neoadjuvant treatment before gastrectomy (G) or primary surgical resection followed by chemotherapy. Such an approach, combined with early detection and better screening, has led to a decrease in the overall incidence of gastric cancer. Unfortunately, malignant tumors of the stomach are often diagnosed in locally advanced or metastatic stages when the median overall survival remains poor. Surgical care in these cases must be provided by a multidisciplinary team in a high-volume center. Important surgical aspects such as optimum resection margins, surgical technique, and number of harvested lymph nodes are important factors for patient outcomes. The standardization of surgical treatment of gastric cancer in accordance with the patient’s profile is of decisive importance for a better outcome. This review aims to summarize the current standards in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer.

Safety and feasibility of total laparoscopic radical resection of Siewert type II gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma through the left diaphragm and left thoracic auxiliary hole

BACKGROUND

The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) is rising every year; however, the mode of operation for Siewert II AEG is still controversial. Accumulating evidence has shown that transabdominal surgery is better than transthoracic surgery for Siewert II AEG with esophageal invasion < 3 cm. In patients with obesity, a large tumor size, and high transection of the esophagus, the transabdominal esophageal hiatus approach for lower mediastinal lymph node dissection and posterior mediastinal anastomosis is difficult. Thus, total laparoscopic radical resection of Siewert II AEG is carried out through the left diaphragm and left chest auxiliary hole for the optimal surgical field of vision and space. In this prospective study, we assessed the feasibility of carrying out the procedure abdominally through the left diaphragm and auxiliary hole.

METHODS

Ten patients with Siewert II AEG were recruited between April and June 2019. Siewert II AEG was treated by total laparoscopy through the left diaphragm and left chest auxiliary hole. Clinicopathological features, surgical data, and adverse events were collected and analyzed in this prospective study.

RESULTS

The average duration of the operation was 348 ± 37.52 min, lower mediastinal dissection took 20.6 min, the OrVil anastomosis time was 29.8 min, the time necessary to suture the seromuscular layer through the left thoracic auxiliary hole was 11 min, the safety margin was 3.2 cm, and the total number of lymph nodes dissected was 40.6. The number of lower mediastinal lymph nodes dissected was 6.2. The rate of lymph node metastasis in the N110 group was 9 ± 12.45%, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 170 ± 57.47 mL. No anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stricture occurred after the operation. The time of intestinal function recovery was 2 days, and the first time of enteral nutrition through a jejunal nutrition tube was 2.4 days. No tumor recurrence was found in 10 patients at 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Total laparoscopic radical resection through the left diaphragm and left thoracic auxiliary hole for Siewert II AEG patients is feasible and safe. Thus, it may be a good surgical alternative for patients with esophageal tumors invading less than 3 cm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000034286. Registered 8 July 2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=55866 .

Intraoperative gastroscopy to determine proximal resection margin during totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with upper third gastric cancer

Background

In totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), it is usually difficult to determine the proximal margin. Therefore, the present study evaluated the usefulness of intraoperative gastroscopy for direct marking of the tumor proximal margin during TLG for cancer in the upper third of the stomach.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 52 patients with gastric cancer who underwent TLG from January 2018 to May 2020. The proximal margin of tumors was determined by intraoperative gastroscopic methods.

Results

Patients were divided into short (1 cm) and long (2 cm) groups according to the distance to the proximal margin of the tumor. Participants consisted of 41 males and 11 females with a median age of 63.5 years. Tumors involving the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) occurred in 27 patients. Siewert type II and III tumors were present in 42 and 10 patients, respectively. The median operative time was 244 min. The long group had a statistically significant lower frequency of positive margin than the short group (0% vs. 17.4%, P=0.033). Total gastrectomy was performed in 35 patients, and 17 patients received proximal gastrectomy. No complications associated with the procedure occurred in any patient.

Conclusions

Intraoperative endoscopic views for tumor proximal localization can be used effectively during TLG for patients with upper third gastric cancer. Our results indicate that a distance of ≥2 cm from the proximal resection margin to the tumor was necessary to achieve a negative resection margin. In the future, this may be used as an alternative to frozen section diagnosis.

Analysis of Esophagectomy Margin Practice and Survival Implications

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine how thoracic surgeons manage intraoperative esophagectomy positive margins and how these decisions may relate to overall survival and progression-free survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A survey was sent to thoracic surgeons to understand the management of intraoperative positive esophagectomy margins. Primary data at two high-volume esophageal cancer institutions from 1994 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who had intraoperative positive frozen section margins during esophagectomy. Patient characteristics and survival data were collected and analyzed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were assessed using a Cox model.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of thoracic surgeons responding to a survey reported the utilization of frozen pathologic evaluation during esophagectomy with attempts at re-resection to achieve negative margin. Our esophagectomy database identified 94 patients with intraoperative positive margins. Of those re-resected (n = 67, 63%), 44 patients (46.8%) were converted to R0 resections. overall survival was improved for patients in the R0 group (13 months) vs R+ group (3.4 months, P = .04). Progression-free survival was also improved between the R0 group (8.6 months) and the R+ group (2.2 months, P = .03). In a multivariable analysis for progression-free survival, margin status was an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio 3.13, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

From a thoracic surgery survey, 85% of surgeons use intraoperative frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical decision making during an esophagectomy. Analyzing patients with a positive margin discovered during esophagectomy suggests that esophageal cancer patients who can undergo re-resection to a negative margin have increased progression-free survival. The final margin appears to be related to progression-free survival.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes Following Transhiatal versus Right Thoracoabdominal Resection of Siewert Type II Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

Background

Few studies have evaluated the outcomes of transhiatal and right thoracoabdominal resection of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. This study investigated the relative effect of these two methods in the surgical treatment of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.

Methods

Clinical data for 211 Siewert type II cancer patients were collected and classified into transhiatal group (n = 181) and right thoracoabdominal group (n = 30) according to surgical approach. Short-term outcomes were compared between these two groups. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival were compared between the matched groups.

Results

The right thoracoabdominal group had significantly greater intraoperative blood loss and longer operative time compared with transhiatal group. Complications corresponding to Clavien–Dindo grade III or higher were 4.4% in transhiatal group and 30% in right thoracoabdominal group (P < 0.05). The right thoracoabdominal group exhibited greater blood loss, longer operative time, longer hospitalization, and a smaller number of lymph nodes retrieved than the transhiatal group as evidenced by PSM analysis, and patients in transhiatal group also experienced significantly better survival than patients in right thoracoabdominal group.

Conclusion

In this study, the transhiatal approach was associated with more favorable short-term and oncological outcomes than the right thoracoabdominal group approach for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. The transhiatal approach with total gastrectomy appears to be an optional choice for this type of tumor, especially for esophagus invasion ≤2 cm. Well-designed randomized control trials are necessary to validate our findings.

Prognostic Impact of Frozen Section Investigation and Extent of Proximal Safety Margin in Gastric Cancer Resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines propose different extents of macroscopic proximal margin for gastric cancer and frozen margin investigation in selected cases, but data is lacking. This study was to evaluate the necessary extent of macroscopic proximal margin, accuracy of frozen margin investigation, and prognostic impact of tumor-free proximal margin length in pT2-pT4 gastric cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Proximal and distal frozen margins were routinely investigated intraoperatively in all pT2-pT4 gastric cancers resected between 2011 and 2017. Macroscopic and microscopic proximal margin lengths were correlated. For R0-resections, survival analysis was performed for distal gastrectomy (DG) with microscopic proximal margin length ≤3 cm versus >3 cm.

RESULTS

Overall, 1484 patients were included. Microscopic proximal margin lengths were macroscopically more often misestimated in diffuse histology (P = 0.0004), but extent of underestimation in centimeter was similar to intestinal and mixed/undetermined type (P = 0.134). Fifteen cases (1.0%) resulted in R1-resection, 10 at distal, and 5 at proximal margin but none with macroscopic proximal margin ≥3 cm and negative frozen section. Overall agreement of frozen margin and final pathology was 2951/2968 (99.4%). Proximal margin length in DG did not correlate with survival or recurrence in R0-resected patients.

DISCUSSION

Diffuse histology is at higher risk for underestimation of proximal margin length, but extent of underestimation is similar in other Laurén subtypes. If ≥3 cm macroscopic proximal margin length is applied with intraoperative frozen margin confirmation, R1-resection can be avoided.

CONCLUSION

In pT2-T4a gastric cancer, proximal margin of ≥3 cm plus frozen margin confirmation provides high oncological safety. In DG patients with R0-resection, proximal margin length does not correlate with survival or recurrence.

Impact of surgical margin status on the survival outcome after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Generally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I² statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165110.

Optimal proximal resection margin distance for gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The conventional guidelines to obtain a safe proximal resection margin (PRM) of 5-6 cm during advanced gastric cancer (AGC) surgery are still applied by many surgeons across the world. Several recent studies have raised questions regarding the need for such extensive resection, but without reaching consensus. This study was designed to prove that the PRM distance does not affect the prognosis of patients who undergo gastrectomy for AGC.

AIM

To investigate the influence of the PRM distance on the prognosis of patients who underwent gastrectomy for AGC.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of 1518 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for AGC between June 2004 and December 2007 at Asan Medical Center, a tertiary care center in Korea, were reviewed retrospectively for the study. The demographics and clinicopathologic outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery with different PRM distances using one-way ANOVA and Fisher’s exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The influence of PRM on recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

The median PRM distance was 4.8 cm and 3.5 cm in the distal gastrectomy (DG) and total gastrectomy (TG) groups, respectively. Patient cohorts in the DG and TG groups were subdivided into different groups according to the PRM distance; ≤ 1.0 cm, 1.1-3.0 cm, 3.1-5.0 cm and > 5.0 cm. The DG and TG groups showed no statistical difference in recurrence rate (23.5% vs 30.6% vs 24.0% vs 24.7%, P = 0.765) or local recurrence rate (5.9% vs 6.5% vs 8.4% vs 6.2%, P = 0.727) according to the distance of PRM. In both groups, Kalpan-Meier analysis showed no statistical difference in recurrence-free survival (P = 0.467 in DG group; P = 0.155 in TG group) or overall survival (P = 0.503 in DG group; P = 0.155 in TG group) according to the PRM distance. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model revealed that in both groups, there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival according to the PRM distance.

CONCLUSION

The distance of PRM is not a prognostic factor for patients who undergo curative gastrectomy for AGC.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The surgical procedure for esophagogastric junction cancer — discussing the tactics

Introduction. Currently, there is no standardized surgical tactics for the esophagogastric junction cancer treatment. The issues of the resection margin, volume of lymphodissection and the optimal size of the gastric stump are still being discussed. This article analyzes the influence of these parameters on the recurrence-free survival and postoperative quality of life for patients, according to the literature data. Objective. Analysis of the treatment outcomes for patients with esophagogastric junction cancer, depending on the surgical tactics. Materials and Methods. The article analyzes the literature data evaluating various approaches in the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer. We present an example (from the Yasuyuki Seto study) of a patient with proximal gastric adenocarcinoma with a depth of T3 invasion and the surgical tactics regarding the size of the gastric stump. a A great advantage of the resection margin located at 2 cm from the proximal margin and at 5 cm from the distal margin has been shown. According to the results of our own observations, a patient with proximal gastric adenocarcinoma with an invasion depth of T3 underwent a resection with the proximal and distal resection margins of 13 and 65 mm, respectively. Negative resection margins were diagnosed intraoperatively. The patient's recurrence -free survival was 6 years. A total gastrectomy or esophagectomy are not the operations of choice because of the worsening of the patient's quality of life. When analyzing the depth of invasion according to the literature data, it has been found that an invasion in the esophagus of more than 30 mm is associated with an increased risk of metastatic lymph nodes of the superior and middle mediastinum. With a gastric invasion length of more than 40 mm, lymph nodes of lesser curvature along the right gastric artery are affected. According to the literature, a gastric stump with the size of more than two-thirds of the organ size was favorable in terms of the postoperative quality of life. Many authors indicate the positive effect of maintaining the gastroesophageal sphincter and cardia of the stomach. In the study by Yasuyuki Seto, proximal gastric resection was applied only if it was possible to maintain more than 12 cm in the small curvature and 25 cm in the large curvature. Conclusion. When choosing the surgical tactics for the esophagogastric junction cancer, one needs to focus on the patient's quality of life after the surgery. It is necessary to achieve negative resection margins in each case. The resection margins should be more than 2 and 5 cm for the proximal and distal margins, respectively. Dissection of the lymph nodes of the middle and superior mediastinum should be carried out with invasion of the tumor into the esophagus by more than 30 mm, removal of the lymph nodes of the lesser curvature of the stomach along the right gastric artery must be carried out if the tumor invasion into stomach is more than 40 mm. It is optimal to keep the gastric stump equal to two-thirds of the size of the organ. The issue of the surgical tactics in cancer of the esophageal-gastric transition is of great practical importance and requires a further study.

How to decide surgical procedure for esophagogastric junction cancer?

Standard surgical procedure for esophagogastric junction cancer, especially adenocarcinoma, has still remained controversial. Various procedures has been allowed and applied for Siewert type II tumors. Negative long resection margin had been regarded as essential in decision on the procedure. Recent papers have, however, shown the priority of invasion length to each side (esophagus and stomach), because it relates the frequency and sites of lymph node metastasis to be dissected. And, the size of remnant stomach is, also, important when a proximal gastrectomy is considered.

Impact of proximal resection margin involvement on survival outcome in patients with proximal gastric cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for proximal resection margin involvement and its impact on survival outcome in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 488 patients who underwent potentially curative resection for proximal gastric cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival differences between patients with positive and negative resection margins were compared and prognostic factors were determined by Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

In this study, 7.6% (37/488) of patients with proximal gastric cancer had a positive proximal resection margin after postoperative histopathological examination. Positive resection margins were significantly associated with advanced tumour stage and more aggressive biological features including larger tumour size, serosal invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Serosal invasion (OR 4.543, 95% CI 2.201 to 9.380, p<0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.279, 95% CI 1.129 to 4.600, p<0.05) were independent risk factors for positive proximal resection margins. In terms of survival outcome, positive resection margins had an adverse impact on the prognosis of patients with proximal gastric cancer (median DFS: 20.7 vs 30.2 months, p<0.001). The multivariate analysis indicated that positive resection margins (HR 1.494, 95% CI 1.042 to 2.142, p=0.029), T stage (T3-T4, HR 2.264, 95% CI 1.484 to 3.454, p<0.001) and N stage (N1-N2 stage, HR 1.696, 95% CI 1.279 to 2.248, p<0.001; N3 stage, HR 2.691, 95% CI 1.967 to 3.681, p<0.001) were independent prognostic factors for patients with proximal gastric cancer.

CONCLUSION

Proximal resection margin involvement was an indicator of more aggressive tumours and an independent prognostic factor for patients with proximal gastric cancer. Aggressive efforts should be made to achieve a negative resection margin if gastric cancer was deemed to be potentially resectable.

Population-Based Study on Risk Factors for Tumor-Positive Resection Margins in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Background

Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to evaluate factors associated with a tumor-positive resection margin after gastrectomy and to evaluate the influence of hospital volume.

Methods

In this Dutch cohort study, patients with junctional or gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was incomplete tumor removal after the operation defined as the microscopic presence of tumor cells at the resection margin. The association of patient and disease characteristics with incomplete tumor removal was tested with multivariable regression analysis. The association of annual hospital volume with incomplete tumor removal was tested and adjusted for the patient- and disease characteristics.

Results

In total, 2799 patients were included. Incomplete tumor removal was seen in 265 (9.5%) patients. Factors associated with incomplete tumor removal were: tumor located in the entire stomach (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.38 [1.91–5.96] reference: gastroesophageal junction), cT3, cT4, cTx (1.75 [1.20–2.56], 2.63 [1.47–4.70], 1.60 [1.03–2.48], reference: cT0-2), pN+ (2.73 [1.96–3.80], reference: pN−), and diffuse and unknown histological subtype (3.15 [2.14–4.46] and 2.05 [1.34–3.13], reference: intestinal). Unknown differentiation grade was associated with complete tumor removal (0.50 [0.30–0.83], reference: poor/undifferentiated). Compared with a hospital volume of < 20 resections/year, 20–39, and > 39 resections were associated with lower probability for incomplete tumor removal (OR 0.56 [0.42–0.76] and 0.34 [0.18–0.64]).

Conclusions

Tumor location, cT, pN, histological subtype, and tumor differentiation are associated with incomplete tumor removal. The association of incomplete tumor removal with an annual hospital volume of < 20 resections may underline the need for further centralization of gastric cancer care in the Netherlands.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-07381-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Feasibility and Safety of Preoperative Fluorescence Marking with Indocyanine Green (ICG) in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Securing the surgical margin is the most essential and important task in curative surgery. However, it is difficult to accurately identify the tumor location during laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer, and existing methods, such as preoperative endoscopic marking with tattooing and clipping, have multiple disadvantages.

AIMS

We investigated the feasibility and safety of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence marking for determining the tumor location during laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed preoperative and perioperative data from consecutive patients with gastric cancer undergoing planned laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. Data was maintained in a prospectively compiled surgical database, and patients were categorized into ICG (n = 84) or non-ICG (n = 174) groups based on whether they underwent preoperative endoscopic mucosal ICG injection. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

We included 84 patient pairs after PSM, and there were no significant differences in preoperative patient characteristics. The ICG group had shorter procedure time (p < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (p = 0.005), and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001). Positive resection margins were confirmed in five cases (6.0%) in the non-ICG group, whereas there were none in the ICG group (p = 0.008). Real-time confirmation was possible during laparoscopy, and the injected ICG did not affect the surgical procedure or result in adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ICG fluorescence imaging is feasible and safe and can potentially be used as a tumor-marking agent for determining the surgical resection line.

Subtraction of Epstein-Barr virus and microsatellite instability genotypes from the Lauren histotypes: Combined molecular and histologic subtyping with clinicopathological and prognostic significance validated in a cohort of 1,248 cases

Limited studies investigated clinicopathological and prognostic significance of histologic and molecular subgroups of gastric cancer concurrently. We retrospectively enrolled 1,248 patients with gastric cancer who received radical gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy and classified these cases into the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated and microsatellite instability (MSI)-associated subtypes by EBV-encoded small RNA in situ hybridization and immunohistochemical stains for DNA mismatch repair proteins, respectively. The remaining cases were categorized as the Lauren intestinal and diffuse/mixed subtypes. The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of the subtypes was examined by statistical analysis. In total, 65 (5.2%), 116 (9.3%), 496 (39.7%), 431 (34.5%) and 140 (11.2%) cases were identified as EBV-associated, MSI-associated, intestinal, diffuse and mixed subtypes, respectively. The EBV-associated, MSI-associated, intestinal and diffuse/mixed subtypes exhibited distinctive clinicopathological characteristics, including differences in age, gender, stump cancer, gastric location, tumor size, TNM stage, margin involvement, lymphatic/perineural invasion, HER2 status and recurrence pattern. The log-rank test showed survival discrimination (p < 0.001), and the multivariate analysis identified EBV-associated and MSI-associated cases demonstrated better outcomes than the diffuse/mixed subtype (EBV, HR 0.464, 95% CI 0.296-0.727, p = 0.001; MSI, HR 0.590, 95% CI 0.407-0.856, p = 0.005). EBV-associated lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma cases had the most favorable outcome (HR 0.138, 95% CI 0.033-0.565, p = 0.006). In different clinical groups, the subtypes exhibited survival discrepancies. The EBV-associated and diffuse/mixed cases exhibited more favorable response to chemotherapy. In conclusion, this combined classification, in parallel with the molecular subtypes specified in the Cancer Genome Atlas study, has implications for the clinical management of gastric cancer.

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Transhiatal Approach for the Treatment of Esophagogastric Junction Cancer

Purpose

The laparoscopic transhiatal approach (LA) for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEJ) is advantageous since it allows better visualization of the surgical field than the open approach (OA). We compared the surgical outcomes of the 2 approaches.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed 108 patients with AEJ who underwent transhiatal distal esophagectomy and gastrectomy with curative intent between 2003 and 2015. Surgical outcomes were reviewed using electronic medical records.

Results

The LA and OA were performed in 37 and 71 patients, respectively. Compared to the OA, the LA was associated with significantly shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11 days, P=0.001), shorter proximal resection margins (3 vs. 7 mm, P=0.004), and extended operative times (240 vs. 191 min, P=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the LA and OA for intraoperative blood loss (100 vs. 100 mL, P=0.392) or surgical morbidity rate (grade≥II) for complications (8.1% vs. 23.9%, P=0.080). Two cases of anastomotic leakage occurred in the OA group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between the LA and OA groups (54 vs. 51, P=0.889). The 5-year overall and 3-year relapse-free survival rates were 81.8% and 50.7% (P=0.024) and 77.3% and 46.4% (P=0.009) for the LA and OA groups, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed no independent factors associated with overall survival.

Conclusions

The LA is feasible and safe with short- and long-term oncologic outcomes similar to those of the OA.

Optimal Intraoperative Assessment of Gastric Margins

OBJECTIVES

Intraoperative pathology consultation (IOC) to assess margins is frequently requested during surgery of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

We studied 110 consecutive patients undergoing gastrectomy with IOC margin assessment.

RESULTS

Gastric margins at IOC utilized the most blocks but were least often positive. In 64% of patients, the entire gastric margin was examined using average six blocks; representative sections were examined in 25% of patients using two blocks. There was no difference in patient outcome between those who had entire vs representative sections of margin examined. Gross variables showing strongest associations with positive margins were tumor size and tumor distance to margin. Tumors sized greater than 2.3 cm had significantly increased risk of positive margin, and tumor distance greater than 4.5 cm to margin was associated with negative margins.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude representative sections of the closest gastric margin are sufficient to ensure R0 resection in the majority of cases.

The Role of Microsatellite Instability in Positive Margin Gastric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Distant nodal metastasis: is it always an unresectable disease?

This article aims at analyzing the published literature concerning the treatment of patients with gastric cancer and distant nodal metastases, actually considered metastatic disease. A systematic search was undertaken using Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web-of-Science libraries. No specific restriction on year of publication was used; preference was given to English papers. Both clinical series and literature reviews were selected. Only 11 papers address the issue of surgery for nodal basins outside the D2 dissection area. From these papers, in selected cases extended surgery may prove useful in prolonging survival, when a comprehensive therapeutic pathway including chemotherapy is scheduled. In conclusion, in presence of nodal metastases outside the loco-regional nodes, surgery may be considered for metastatic nodes in stations 13 and 16, in selected cases.