Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Comparison of totally robotic and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements in laparoscopic or robotic surgical techniques and instruments, a growing number of surgeons have attempted to complete all digestive tract reconstruction intracorporeally; these procedures include totally robotic gastrectomy (TRG) and totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the TRG and compare the short-term outcomes of the TRG and TLG in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and June 2023, 346 consecutive patients who underwent TRG or TLG at a high-volume academic gastric cancer specialty center were included. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias. The surgical outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and surgical burden were compared in PSM cohort.

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 194 patients (97 in each group) was included in the analysis. The total operation time of the TRG group was significantly longer than that of the TLG group (244.9 vs. 213.0 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the effective operation time between the 2 groups (217.8 vs. 207.2 min, P = 0.059). The digestive tract reconstruction time of the TRG group was significantly shorter than that of the TLG group (39.4 vs. 46.7 min, P < 0.001). The mean blood loss in the TRG group was less than that in the TLG group (101.1 vs. 126.8 mL, P = 0.014). The TRG group had more retrieved lymph nodes in the suprapancreatic area than that in the TLG group (16.6 vs 14.2, P = 0.002). The TRG group had a lower surgery task load index (38.9 vs. 43.1, P < 0.001) than the TLG group. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative morbidity between the 2 groups (14.4% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.691).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that TRG is a safe and feasible procedure, and is preferable to TLG in terms of invasion and ergonomics. The TRG may maximize the superiority of robotic surgical systems and embodies the theory of minimally invasive surgery.

Diagnosis to dissection: AI's role in early detection and surgical intervention for gastric cancer

Gastric cancer remains a formidable health challenge worldwide; early detection and effective surgical intervention are critical for improving patient outcomes. This comprehensive review explores the evolving landscape of gastric cancer management, emphasizing the significant contributions of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing both diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Despite advancements in the medical field, the subtle nature of early gastric cancer symptoms often leads to late-stage diagnoses, where survival rates are notably decreased. Historically, the treatment of gastric cancer has transitioned from palliative care to surgical resection, evolving further with the introduction of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques. In the current era, AI has emerged as a transformative force, enhancing the precision of early gastric cancer detection through sophisticated image analysis, and supporting surgical decision-making with predictive modeling and real-time preop-, intraop-, and postoperative guidance. However, the deployment of AI in healthcare raises significant ethical, legal, and practical challenges, including the necessity for ongoing professional education and the development of standardized protocols to ensure patient safety and the effective use of AI technologies. Future directions point toward a synergistic integration of AI with clinical best practices, promising a new era of personalized, efficient, and safer gastric cancer management.

Complete laparoscopic and Da Vinci robot esophagogastric anastomosis double muscle flap plasty for radical resection of proximal gastric cancer

Objective

To investigate the application value of complete laparoscopy and Da Vinci robot esophagogastric anastomosis double muscle flap plasty in radical resection of proximal gastric cancer.

Method

A retrospective descriptive study was used. The clinicopathological data of 35 patients undergoing radical operation for proximal gastric cancer admitted to Liaoning Cancer Hospital from January 2020 to December 2023 were collected. Variables evaluated: 1. Transoperative,2. Postoperative, 3. Follow-up. In relation to follow-up, esophageal disease status reflux, anastomosis, nutritional status score, serum hemoglobin, tumor recurrence, and metastasis were investigated. The trans and postoperative variables were obtained from the clinical records and the patients were followed up in outpatient department and by telephone.

Result

Among the 35 patients, 17 underwent robotic surgery and 18 underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were 29 males and 6 females. 1) Transoperative: Robotic surgery: The operation time was (305.59 ± 22.07) min, the esophagogastric anastomosis double muscle flap plasty time was (149.76 ± 14.91) min, the average number of lymph nodes cleared was 30, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 30 ml. Laparoscopic surgery: The mean operation time was 305.17 ± 26.92min, the operation time of esophagogastric anastomosis double muscle flap was (194.06 ± 22.52) min, the average number of lymph nodes cleared was 24, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 52.5 ml. 2) Postoperative: Robotic surgery: the average time for patients to have their first postoperative anal emission was 3 days, the average time to first postoperative feeding was 4 days, and the average length of hospitalization after surgery was 8 days. Laparoscopic surgery: the average time for patients to have their first postoperative anal emission was 5 days, the average time to first postoperative feeding was 6 days, the average length of hospitalization after surgery was 10 days. 3) Follow-up: The follow-up time ranged from 1 to 42 months, with a median follow-up time of 24 months.

Conclusion

Complete Da Vinci robot and laparoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis double muscle flap plasty for radical resection of proximal gastric cancer can minimize surgical incision, reduce abdominal exposure, accelerate postoperative recovery of patients, and effectively prevent reflux esophagitis and maintain good hemoglobin concentration and nutritional status. The advantages of robotic surgery is less intraoperative bleeding and faster post-surgical recovery, but it is relatively more expensive.

Comparison of Short-term and Three-year Oncological Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of RG over LG have not yet been effectively demonstrated.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 3599 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy at eight high-volume hospitals in China from January 2015 to June 2019. Propensity score matching was performed between patients who received RG and LG. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1034 pairs of patients were enrolled in a balanced cohort for further analysis. The 3-year DFS in the RG and LG was 83.7% and 83.1% ( P =0.745), respectively, and the 3-year overall survival was 85.2% and 84.4%, respectively ( P =0.647). During 3 years of follow-up, 154 patients in the RG and LG groups relapsed (cumulative incidence of recurrence: 15.0% vs 15.0%, P =0.988). There was no significant difference in the recurrence sites between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). Sensitivity analysis showed that RG had comparable 3-year DFS (77.4% vs 76.7%, P =0.745) and overall survival (79.7% vs 78.4%, P =0.577) to LG in patients with advanced (pathologic T2-4a) disease, and the recurrence pattern within 3 years was also similar between the 2 groups (all P >0.05). RG had less intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rate, and shorter hospital stays than LG (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable gastric cancer, including advanced cases, RG is a safe approach with comparable 3-year oncological outcomes to LG when performed by experienced surgeons.

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.

Emerging multi-port soft tissue robotic systems: a systematic review of clinical outcomes

Multiple novel multi-port robotic surgical systems have been introduced into clinical practice. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these novel robotic systems to conventional laparoscopic technique and established da Vinci robotic surgical platforms. A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines from 2012 to May 2023. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of novel multi-port robotic surgical systems with laparoscopic or the da Vinci platforms were included. Case series with no comparison groups were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient and outcome data. A systematic narrative review was provided for each outcome. Twelve studies comprised of 1142 patients were included. A total of 6 novel multi-port robotic systems: Micro Hand S, Senhance, Revo-i MSR-5000, KangDuo, Versius, and Hugo™ RAS were compared against the laparoscopic or the da Vinci robotic platforms. Clinical outcomes of these novel robotic platforms were comparable to the established da Vinci platforms. When compared against conventional laparoscopic approaches, the robotic platforms demonstrated lower volume of blood loss, shorter length of stay but longer operative time. This systematic review highlighted the safe implementation and efficacy of 6 new robotic systems. The clinical outcomes achieved by these new robotic systems are comparable to the established da Vinci robotic system in simple to moderate case complexities. There is emerging evidence that these new robotic systems provide a viable alternative to currently available robotic platforms.

Molecular Classifications in Gastric Cancer: A Call for Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Gastric cancer (GC) is a heterogeneous disease, often diagnosed at advanced stages, with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 20%. Despite notable technological advancements in cancer research over the past decades, their impact on GC management and outcomes has been limited. Numerous molecular alterations have been identified in GC, leading to various molecular classifications, such as those developed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG). Other authors have proposed alternative perspectives, including immune, proteomic, or epigenetic-based classifications. However, molecular stratification has not yet transitioned into clinical practice for GC, and little attention has been paid to alternative molecular classifications. In this review, we explore diverse molecular classifications in GC from a practical point of view, emphasizing their relationships with clinicopathological factors, prognosis, and therapeutic approaches. We have focused on classifications beyond those of TCGA and the ACRG, which have been less extensively reviewed previously. Additionally, we discuss the challenges that must be overcome to ensure their impact on patient treatment and prognosis. This review aims to serve as a practical framework to understand the molecular landscape of GC, facilitate the development of consensus molecular categories, and guide the design of innovative molecular studies in the field.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence.

RESULTS

Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39-58) months for the RG group and 39 (38-56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma in the US: a propensity score-matching analysis of 11,173 patients on oncological adequacy

INTRODUCTION

Surgery remains the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer. Previous studies have reported better lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive approaches. There is a paucity of data comparing robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the US. Herein, we examined whether oncological adequacy differs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. A propensity score-matching analysis between robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was performed. The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 16 nodes and surgical margins.

RESULTS

A total of 11,173 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. Of those 8320 underwent LG and 2853 RG. Comparing the unmatched cohorts, RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy (63.5% vs 57.1%, p < .0.0001), higher rate of negative margins (93.8% vs 91.9%, p < 0.001), lower rate of prolonged length of stay (26.0% vs 29.6%, p < .0.001), lower 90-day mortality (3.7% vs 5.0%, p < 0.0001), and a better 5-year overall survival (OS) (56% vs 54%, p = 0.03). A propensity score-matching cohort with a 1:1 ratio was created utilizing the variables associated with lymphadenectomy ≥ 16 nodes. The matched analysis revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy was significantly higher for RG compared to LG, 63.5% vs 60.4% (p = 0.01), respectively. There was no longer a significant difference between RG and LG regarding the rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, 90-day mortality, rate of receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This propensity score-matching analysis with a large US cohort shows that RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy compared to LR. RG and LG had a similar rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, 90-day mortality, and OS, suggesting that RG is a comparable surgical approach, if not superior to LG.

Complete mesogastric excision for gastric cancer: is it the future of gastric cancer surgery?

Gastric cancer remains undoubtedly one of the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. The global incidence shows wide geographic variation with a high prevalence in Asia. Besides that, there are evident differences in epidemiology, histopathology, tumor location, diagnosis and treatment strategy between east and west countries. Gastric cancer represents an aggressive disease, with many factors influencing its development and also recurrence after surgical resection. New knowledge of disease spread and new routes of metastases are now emerging and the 'novel' concept of complete mesogastric excision for gastric cancer is under consideration and debate. This article aims to analyze and highlight this new concept after a careful literature review, offering also a view toward the future.

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) has been used in the minimally invasive surgical treatment of gastric cancer, but the research on advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been reported. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of RADG versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) after NAC for AGC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis from February 2020 and March 2022. Patients who underwent RADG or LDG for AGC (cT3-4a/N +) following NAC were enrolled and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 manner. The patients were divided into RADG group and LDG group. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 67 patients each in the RADG and LDG groups. RADG was associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss (35.6 vs. 118.8 ml, P = 0.014) and more retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (50.7 vs. 39.5, P < 0.001), more extraperigastric (18.3 vs. 10.4, P < 0.001), and suprapancreatic LNs (16.33 vs. 13.70, P = 0.042). The RADG group showed lower VAS scores at postoperative 24 h (2.2 vs 3.3, P = 0.034), earlier ambulation (1.3 vs. 2.6, P = 0.011), aerofluxus time (2.2 vs. 3.6, P = 0.025), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (8.3 vs. 9.8, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the operative time (216.7 vs.194.7 min, P = 0.204) and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG may be a potential therapeutic option for patients with AGC after NAC considering its advantages in perioperative period compared with LDG.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

Surgical Sealant with Integrated Shape-Morphing Dual Modality Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Sensors for Gastric Leak Detection

Postoperative anastomotic leaks are the most feared complications after gastric surgery. For diagnostics clinicians mostly rely on clinical symptoms such as fever and tachycardia, often developing as a result of an already fully developed, i.e., symptomatic, surgical leak. A gastric fluid responsive, dual modality, electronic-free, leak sensor system integrable into surgical adhesive suture support materials is introduced. Leak sensors contain high atomic number carbonates embedded in a polyacrylamide matrix, that upon exposure to gastric fluid convert into gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2 ). CO2 bubbles remain entrapped in the hydrogel matrix, leading to a distinctly increased echogenic contrast detectable by a low-cost and portable ultrasound transducer, while the dissolution of the carbonate species and the resulting diffusion of the cation produces a markedly reduced contrast in computed tomography imaging. The sensing elements can be patterned into a variety of characteristic shapes and can be combined with nonreactive tantalum oxide reference elements, allowing the design of shape-morphing sensing elements visible to the naked eye as well as artificial intelligence-assisted automated detection. In summary, shape-morphing dual modality sensors for the early and robust detection of postoperative complications at deep tissue sites, opening new routes for postoperative patient surveillance using existing hospital infrastructure is reported.

Comparison of the learning curve of robotassisted and laparoscopicassisted gastrectomy

OBJECTIVES

Da Vinci robot technology is widely used in clinic,with minimally invasive surgery development. This study aims to explore the possible influence of advanced surgical robotics on the surgery learning curve by comparing the initial clinical learning curves of 2 different surgical techniques: robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG).

METHODS

From September 2017 to December 2020, a chief surgeon completed a total of 108 cases of radical gastric cancer from the initial stage, including 27 cases of RAG of the Da Vinci Si robotic system (RAG group) and 81 cases of LAG (LAG group). The lymph node of gastric cancer implemented by the Japanese treatment guidelines of gastric cancer. The surgical results, postoperative complications, oncology results and learning curve were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in general data, tumor size, pathological grade and clinical stage between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The incidence of serious complications in the RAG group was lower than the LAG group (P=0.003). The intraoperative blood loss in the RAG group was lower than that in the LAG group (P=0.046). The number of lymph nodes cleaned in the RAG group was more (P=0.003), among which there was obvious advantage in lymph node cleaning in the No.9 group (P=0.038) and 11p group (P=0.015). The operation time of the RAG group was significantly longer than the LAG group (P=0.015). The analysis of learning curve found that the cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) value of the RAG group decreased from the 10th case, while the CUSUM of the LAG group decreased from the 28th case. The learning curve of the RAG group had fewer closing cases than that of the LAG group. The unique design of the surgical robot might help to improve the surgical efficiency and shorten the surgical learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced robotics helps experienced surgeons quickly learn to master RAG skills. With the help of robotics, RAG are superior to LAG in No.9 and 11p lymph node dissection and surgical trauma reduction. RAG can clear more lymph nodes than LAG, and has better perioperative effect.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for old rectal cancer patients

Robotic surgery is widely utilized for rectal cancer. Older patients are associated with comorbidity and diminished cardiopulmonary reserve, resulting in uncertainty and reluctance to perform robotic surgery in older patients. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in older rectal cancer patients. We collected the data of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and operated at our hospital from May 2015 to January 2021. All patients undergoing robotic surgery were classified into two groups: the old group (≥ 70 years) and young group (< 70 years). Perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Risk factors related to postoperative complications were also explored. A total of old N = 114 and young N = 324 rectal patients were enrolled in our study. Older patients were prone to exhibit comorbidity than the young and had lower body mass index and higher scores of American Society of Anesthesiologists than the young. No statistical difference was found in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, tumor size, pathological TNM stage, hospital stay after surgery and total hospital cost between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative complications did not show difference between the two groups. On multivariate analyses, male sex and longer operative time could predict postoperative complications, whereas old age was not an independent factor for postoperative complications. After careful preoperative evaluation, robotic surgery is a technically feasible and safe procedure for older rectal cancer patients.

Five-year long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been reported to be technically feasible and safe for patients with gastric cancer. However, 5-year long-term survival and recurrence outcomes for advanced gastric cancer have rarely been reported. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The general clinicopathological data of 1905 consecutive patients who underwent RG and LG were retrospectively collected at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital between November 2011 and October 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match groups. The primary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 283 patients in the RG group and 701 patients in the LG group were included in the analysis. The 5-year cumulative DFS rates were 67.28% in the robotic group and 70.41% in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year OS rate was 69.01% in the robotic group and 69.58% in the laparoscopic group. No significant differences in Kaplan-Meier survival curves for DFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.39, Log-rank P = 0.557) and OS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.34, Log-rank P = 0.850) were observed between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, there were no significant differences in 5-year DFS and 5-year OS survival between the 2 groups (P > 0.05), except for patients with pathological stage III and pathological stage N3 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with early gastric cancer, robotic and laparoscopic approaches have similar long-term survival. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, further studies need to be conducted to assess the long-term survival outcomes of RG.

Comparison of short-term efficacy and safety between total robotic and total 3D laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery has been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ERAS in total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) versus 3D total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (3D-TLDG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 73 patients underwent TRDG and 163 patients who received 3D-TLDG. The propensity score was used for matching analysis according to a 1:1 ratio, so that there was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The short-term effect and safety of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The TRDG group had a less intraoperative bleeding (30.21 ± 13.78 vs. 41.44 ± 17.41 ml, P < 0.001), longer intraoperative preparation time (31.05 ± 4.93 vs. 15.48 ± 2.43 min, P < 0.001), shorter digestive tract reconstruction time (32.67 ± 4.41 vs. 39.78 ± 4.95 min, P < 0.001), shorter postoperative ambulation time (14.07 ± 8.97 vs. 17.49 ± 5.98 h, P = 0.007), shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (1.78 ± 0.79 vs. 2.18 ± 0.79 days, P = 0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (7.74 ± 3.15 vs. 9.97 ± 3.23 days, P < 0.001), lower postoperative pain score (P = 0.006) and higher hospitalization cost (89,907.15 ± 17,147.19 vs. 125,615.82 ± 11,900.80 RMB, P < 0.001) than the 3D-TLDG group.

CONCLUSION

TRDG and 3D-TLDG under ERAS protocol are safe and feasible. Compared with 3D-TLDG, the TRDG has better intraoperative bleeding control effect and greater advantages in digestive tract reconstruction. After the combination of ERAS protocol, TRDG also has certain advantages in the recovery process of patients after surgery.

Identification of a novel reactive oxygen species (ROS)-related genes model combined with RT-qPCR experiments for prognosis and immunotherapy in gastric cancer

Reactive oxygen species play a crucial role in the prognosis and tumor microenvironment (TME) of malignant tumors. An ROS-related signature was constructed in gastric cancer (GC) samples from TCGA database. ROS-related genes were obtained from the Molecular Signatures Database. Consensus clustering was used to establish distinct ROS-related subtypes related to different survival and immune cell infiltration patterns. Sequentially, prognostic genes were identified in the ROS-related subtypes, which were used to identify a stable ROS-related signature that predicted the prognosis of GC. Correlation analysis revealed the significance of immune cell iniltration, immunotherapy, and drug sensitivity in gastric cancers with different risks. The putative molecular mechanisms of the different gastric cancer risks were revealed by functional enrichment analysis. A robust nomogram was established to predict the outcome of each gastric cancer. Finally, we verified the expression of the genes involved in the model using RT-qPCR. In conclusion, the ROS-related signature in this study is a novel and stable biomarker associated with TME and immunotherapy responses.

Robotic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 5402 Patients in China

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RG is being increasingly used worldwide, but data from large-scale multicenter studies on the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of RG versus LG are limited. The potential benefits of RG compared with LG for gastric cancer remain controversial.

METHODS

Data from eligible patients who underwent RG or LG for gastric cancer of 11 experienced surgeons from 7 centers in China between March 2010 and October 2019 were collected. The RG group was matched 1:1 with the LG group by using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 3552 patients was included for further analysis. The occurrence of overall complications (12.6% vs 15.2%, P = 0.023) was lower in the RG group than in the LG group. RG was associated with less blood loss (126.8 vs 142.5 mL, P < 0.001) and more retrieved lymph nodes in total (32.5 vs 30.7, P < 0.001) and in suprapancreatic areas (13.3 vs 11.6, P < 0.001).The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this multicenter study demonstrate that RG is a safe and effective treatment for gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons, although longer operation time and higher costs are still concerns about RG. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG may represent an alternative surgical treatment to LG.

Initial Experience with Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Assessment of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is an alternative minimally invasive surgical technique that has gradually come into use for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RG for the treatment of GC. We retrospectively reviewed the use of RG in 47 patients with GC, and clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes were evaluated. The median age and body mass index of the patients were 68 years and 21.9 kg/m², respectively. Distal gastrectomy, total gastrectomy, and proximal gastrectomy were performed in 39 (83.0%), 5 (10.6%), and 3 (6.4%) patients, respectively. The median operative time was 354 (256- 603) min. None of the operations were converted to open or laparoscopic procedures. The median blood loss was 15 (2-350) ml. None of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43 (7-93). The median duration of postoperative hospital stay was 13 (9-37) days. Approximately 4.3% and 2.1% of the patients had anastomotic leakage and pancreatic fistula, respectively. One (2.1%) patient had Clavien-Dindo classification grade IIIa surgical complication (anastomotic leakage). No treatment-related deaths were observed. These findings suggest that RG might be a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of GC.

Comparison of long-term outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic radical gastrectomy: a propensity score-matching study

OBJECTIVE

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the long-term outcomes of robotic radical gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the radical results and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed the general clinicopathological data of gastric cancer patients treated with robotic radical gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LG) from July 2016 to July 2018 at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. The RG cohort was matched 1:3 with the LG cohort by using propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoints of the study were 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

The study included 221 patients treated with RG and 1106 patients treated with LG for gastric cancer. After PSM, 211 patients were included in the RG cohort, and 663 patients were included in the LG cohort. The 3-year OS rate was 81.0% in the robotic cohort and 79.3% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.516). The 3-year RFS rate was 78.7% in the robotic cohort and 75.6% in the laparoscopic cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.600). In the subgroup analyses, no significant differences were noted between the RG and LG cohorts in terms of 3-year OS and 3-year RFS (all P > 0.05). The therapeutic value index of each lymph node station dissection in the robotic cohort was comparable to that in the laparoscopic cohort.

CONCLUSION

Robotic radical gastrectomy can achieve radical results and long-term outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery, and further multicenter prospective studies can be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of robotic radical gastrectomy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Analysis of Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Open Versus Robotic Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive, robotic gastrectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and quicker functional recovery. However, the degree to which the robotic approach influences postoperative pain and opioid use after gastrectomy is unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether the robotic approach to gastrectomy reduces postoperative opioid use compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy (November 2018 to September 2021) were identified retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, short-term surgical outcomes, oral morphine equivalent (OME) use, and pain scores were collected. Both groups were managed through an enhanced recovery program in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients, 50 underwent open and 31 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Compared with open gastrectomy patients, robotic gastrectomy patients had longer surgery time (360 vs. 288 min), less blood loss (50 vs. 138 mL), and shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days) (all medians, P < 0.001). Robotic gastrectomy patients used lower OMEs on postoperative days 0-4 (all P < 0.05) and in total for days 0-4 (total mean dose 65.0 vs. 169.5 mg; P < 0.001) than did open gastrectomy patients. The robotic gastrectomy patients were prescribed a lower mean OME dose than the open gastrectomy patients (19.0 vs. 29.0 mg, respectively; P = 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that robotic approach was associated with lower opioid use (odds ratio 3.70; 95% CI 1.01-14.3; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy reduces opioid use in the early postoperative period and is associated with fewer OME discharge prescriptions and shorter hospital stay.

Early experience with total robotic D2 gastrectomy in a low incidence region: surgical perspectives

Background

Few European centers have reported on robotic gastrectomy for malignancy. We report our early experience with curative-intent total robotic gastrectomy.

Materials and methods

The Intuitive Surgery Da Vinci Surgical System Xi 4 armed robot was used. Routine D2 lymphadenectomy was applied.

Results

Some 27 patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 18), hereditary cancer susceptibility (n = 8) and premalignancy (n = 1) were allocated to robotic gastrectomy, three were excluded due to inoperability during surgery. Median (range) age was 66 (18–87) years, 14 (58.3%) were females and body mass index was 25.5 (22.1–33.5) kg/m². Total gastrectomy was performed in 19 (79.2%) and subtotal in five (20.8%) patients. One (4.2%) procedure was converted to laparotomy. Procedural time was 273 (195–427) minutes. Three (12.5%) patients were reoperated within 30 days, one (4.2%) died. Serious complications (Clavien Dindo IIIb or more) occurred in three (12.5%) patients. Postoperative hospital stay was 10 (6–43) days. Fourteen of 16 (87.5%) patients with adenocarcinoma/premalignancy received radical resections. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 20 (11–34). Eleven (73.3%) patients with adenocarcinoma had T3/T4 tumors and 6 (40%) had TNM stage III or more.

Conclusion

Total robotic D2 gastrectomy appears feasible and safe during early introduction in a low incidence region.

Reverse rolling-mat type lymph node dissection is the key step to solve the operative difficulties in hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy

Background

We have improved and named a new reverse rolling-mat type lymph node dissection, which effectively solves the dilemma faced by the traditional lymph node dissection in hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy through the optimization of the surgical procedure. However, the relevant clinical data are still scarce. The study aims to compare the clinical effects of two surgical procedure and explore the safety and feasibility of “reverse procedure”.

Study design

The clinicopathological data of 195 patients who underwent hand-assisted D2 radical total gastrectomy (HALTG) in our hospital from January 2011 to September 2017 were collected. A retrospective case–control study was used to compare the clinical outcomes of the two patterns of lymph node dissection. Among them, 89 patients underwent “cabbage type” lymph node dissection and 106 patients underwent the “reverse procedure” lymph node dissection.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups of patients in terms of gender, age, tumor location, incision length, postoperative hospitalization duration, pathological classification, recent complications, long-term recurrence and metastasis. The operation time of “cabbage type” group was shorter than that of “reverse procedure” group (178.35 ± 31.52 min vs 191.25 ± 32.77 min; P = 0.006). While, in the “reverse procedure” group, intraoperative blood loss was less (249.4 ± 143.12 vs 213.58 ± 101.43; P = 0.049), and there were more numbers of lymph nodes dissected (18.04 ± 7.00 vs 32.25 ± 14.23; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The pattern of reverse rolling-mat type lymph node dissection in HALTG perform well in terms of safety and feasibility.

Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Background

Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer.

Methods

Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010–2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.

Results

Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17–1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60–0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84–1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56–0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85–0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81–0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings.

Conclusion

Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y.

Recent Advances in the Diagnosis, Staging, Treatment, and Prognosis of Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Literature Review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide which results in malignant tumors in the digestive tract. The only radical treatment option available is surgical resection. Recently, the implementation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in 5-year survival rates of 95% for early gastric cancer. The main reason of treatment failure is that early diagnosis is minimal, with many patients presenting advanced stages. Hence, the greatest benefit of radical resection is missed. Consequently, the main therapeutic approach for advanced gastric cancer is combined surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. In this review, we will discuss the various treatment options for advanced gastric cancer. Clinical practice and clinical research is the most practical way of reaching new advents in terms of patients' characteristics, optimum drug choice, and better prognosis. With the recent advances in gastric cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment, and prognosis, we are evident that the improvement of survival in this patient population is just a matter of time.

Treatment burden of robotic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC): a single western experience

Background

This study compares standard of care (SOC) open and robotic D2-gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in the Western context of low disease prevalence, reduced surgical volume, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We hypothesized that robotic gastrectomy (RG) after NAC reduces treatment burden for LAGC across multiple outcome domains vs. SOC.

Methods

Single institution, interrupted time series comparing SOC (2008–2013) for LAGC (T2–4Nany/TanyN+) vs. NAC + RG (2013–2018). Treatment burden was a composite metric of narcotic consumption, oncologic efficacy, cumulative morbidity, and 90-day resource utilization. Predictors were evaluated via multivariate modeling. Learning curve analysis was done using CUSUM.

Results

After exclusions, 87 subjects with equivalent baseline characteristics, aside from male sex, were treated via SOC (n=55) or NAC + RG (n=32). All four domains of treatment burden were significantly reduced in the NAC + RG cohort compared to SOC (P=0.003). The odds ratio for excess treatment burden in the NAC/RG was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.07–0.72, P=0.0117) vs. SOC upon multivariable modeling, whereas the extent of resection (total/subtotal), tumor size, T-stage, sex, and early learning curve had no effect. Differences in treatment burden persisted in subgroup analysis for NAC (n=51).

Conclusions

NAC + RG was associated with decreased treatment burden relative to SOC for LAGC. Frequencies of unfavorable hospitalization, adverse oncological outcomes, major morbidity, and narcotic consumption all decreased in this interrupted time series.

The impact of pancreas compression time during minimally invasive gastrectomy on the postoperative complications in gastric cancer

AIM

Pancreas compression during minimally invasive gastrectomy causes blunt injury to the pancreas and leads to postoperative complications. However, the extent of practical compression associated with the incidence of postoperative complications remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pancreas compression, particularly the duration of compression, on short-term outcomes in minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This study included 178 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy at the Shizuoka Cancer Center in 2018. The total time of pancreas compression during gastrectomy was measured using video-reviews, and the correlation between the time and surgical outcomes was evaluated.

RESULTS

A duration of 3 min was selected as the cutoff value of pancreas compression time to predict high drain amylase concentration on postoperative day 1 (≥1000 U/L). The incidence of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (1.5% vs 12.4%, P = .011) and all postoperative complications (12.3% vs 30.1%, P = .010) were significantly higher in the longer-compression group than in the shorter-compression group. The multivariable analysis identified longer compression as the only independent risk factor for postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

More than a few minutes of pancreas compression during minimally invasive gastrectomy was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Advanced minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic surgeries, are applied increasingly frequently around the world and are primarily used to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Against that background, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies comparing surgical outcomes between LG and RG patients were retrieved from medical databases, including RCTs and non-RCTs. The primary outcome of this study was overall survival, which was obtained by evaluating the 3-year survival rate and the 5-year survival rate. In addition, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and harvested lymph nodes were also assessed. We also conducted subgroup analyses stratified by resection type, body mass index, age, depth of invasion and tumour size. Ultimately, 31 articles met the criterion for our study through an attentive check of each text, including 1 RCT and 30 non-RCTs. A total of 12,401 patients were included in the analysis, with 8127 (65.5%) undergoing LG and 4274 (34.5%) undergoing RG. Compared with LG, RG was associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93; P = 0.002), especially pancreas-related complications (OR 0.376; 95% CI 0.156-0.911; P = 0.030), increased harvested lymph nodes (WMD 2.03; 95% CI 0.95-3.10; P < 0.001), earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.105 days; 95% CI - 0.207 to - 0.003; P = 0.044), longer operation time (WMD 40.192 min, 95% CI 32.07-48.31; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 20.09 ml; 95% CI - 26.86 to - 13.32; P < 0.001), and higher expense (WMD 19,141.68 RMB; 95% CI 11,856.07-26,427.29; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding 3-year overall survival (OR 1.030; 95% CI 0.784-1.353; P = 0.832), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.862; 95% CI 0.721-1.031; P = 0.105), conversion rate (OR 0.857; 95% CI 0.443-1.661; P = 0.648), postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.368 days; 95% CI - 0.75-0.013; P = 0.059), mortality (OR 1.248; 95% CI 0.514-3.209; P = 0.592), and reoperation (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.479-1.525; P = 0.595). Our study revealed that postoperative complications, especially pancreas-related complications, occurred less often with RG than with LG. However, long-term outcomes between the two surgical techniques need to be further examined, particularly regarding the oncological adequacy of robotic gastric cancer resections.

Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is currently considered a valid option to treat gastric cancer and is gaining increasing acceptance. Recent reports have suggested that the application of robots may confer some advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but the role of robotic surgery in clinical practice is still uncertain. We aimed to critically review the relevant evidence comparing robotic to standard laparoscopic surgery in performing radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline electronic databases were searched through February 2021. Paper conference and the English language was the only restriction applied to our search strategy.

RESULTS

According to the existing data, robotic gastrectomy seems to provide some benefits in terms of blood loss, rate of conversion, procedure-specific postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Robotic gastrectomy is also associated with a longer duration of surgery and a higher economic burden as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. No significant differences have been disclosed in terms of long-term survivals, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved with robotic gastrectomy is generally higher than that of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature suggests that robotic radical gastrectomy appears as competent as the conventional laparoscopic procedure and may provide some clinical advantages. However, due to the relative paucity of high-level evidence, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and quality of life in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and totally robotic distal gastrectomy for clinical stage I-III gastric cancer: study protocol for a multi-institutional randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is regarded as a standard treatment for patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer. With the popularisation of the Da Vinci robotic system in the 21st century, robotic distal gastrectomy has been increasingly applied, and its potential advantages over LDG have been proved by several studies. Intraperitoneal anastomosis is a hot topic in research as it highlights the superiority of minimally invasive surgery and is safe and feasible. We intend to conduct this randomised clinical trial to focus on short-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) and totally robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) for patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a prospective, multi-institutional, open-label randomised clinical trial that will recruit 722 patients with a 1:1 ratio (361 patients in the TLDG group and 361 patients in the TRDG group) from eight large-scale gastrointestinal medical centres in China. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity. The secondary endpoints include QOL, 30-day severe postoperative morbidity and mortality, anastomotic-related complication rate, conversion to open surgery rate, intraoperative and postoperative indicators, operative and total costs during hospitalisation, 1-year overall survival and disease-free survival. QOL is determined by the The European Organization for Reasearch and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnare-Core 30 and Stomach22 (EORTC QLQ-C30 and STO22) questionnaires which are completed before surgery and 1, 3, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. χ2 test will be used for the primary endpoint, while analysis of covariance will be used to compare the overall changes of QOL between the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Chinese PLA General Hospital. The trial's results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000032670.

Learning curve of robotic distal and total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the learning curve of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by five surgeons between March 2010 and August 2019 at two high-volume institutions were collected. The learning curve was determined based on the analyses of operation time and postoperative complications within 30 days. Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted-CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) were applied to identify the turning points (TPs).

RESULTS

A total of 899 consecutive patients were included. The mean number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for operation time of RDG and RTG were 22 and 20, respectively. The number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for postoperative complications after RDG and RTG were 23 and 18, respectively. The surgical outcomes in the post-TP group were better than in the pre-TP group and improved as surgeons' experience increased. Also, increased case numbers in RDG promoted the RTG learning process.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated a substantial influence of surgical cumulative volume on improved surgical outcomes in robotic gastrectomy. Increased experience in RDG may help surgeons to achieve proficiency faster in RTG.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, whether RDG has a clinical advantage over laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) is yet to be determined. Thus, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of RDG for the treatment of GC as compared with LDG.

Methods

In total, 157 patients were enrolled between February 2018 and August 2020 in this retrospective study. We then compared the surgical outcomes between RDG and LDG using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the confounding differences.

Results

After PSM, a clinicopathologically well-balanced cohort of 100 patients (50 in each group) was analyzed. The operation time for the RDG group (350.1 ± 58.1 min) was determined to be significantly longer than that for the LDG group (257.5 ± 63.7 min; P < 0.0001). Of interest, there was a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistulas and severe complications after RDG as compared with LDG (P = 0.092 and P = 0.061, respectively). In addition, postoperative hospital stay was statistically slightly shorter in the RDG group as compared with the LDG group (12.0 ± 5.6 vs. 13.0 ± 12.3 days; P = 0.038).

Conclusions

Our study confirmed that RDG is a feasible and safe procedure for GC in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. A surgical robot might reduce postoperative severe complications and length of hospital stay.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for stage II and III advanced gastric cancer: long‑term follow‑up data from a Western multicenter retrospective study

Introduction

There has been an increasing interest for the laparoscopic treatment of early gastric cancer, especially among Eastern surgeons. However, the oncological effectiveness of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy (LG) for Advanced Gastric Cancer (AGC) remains a subject of debate, especially in Western countries where limited reports have been published. The aim of this paper is to retrospectively analyze short- and long-term results of LG for AGC in a real-life Western practice.

Materials and methods

All consecutive cases of LG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC performed from January 2005 to December 2019 at seven different surgical departments were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was diseases-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), number of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative morbidity and conversion rate.

Results

A total of 366 patients with stage II and III AGC underwent either total or subtotal LG. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 25 ± 14. The mean hospital stay was 13 ± 10 days and overall postoperative morbidity rate 27.32%, with severe complications (grade ≥ III) accounting for 9.29%. The median follow-up was 36 ± 16 months during which 90 deaths occurred, all due to disease progression. The DFS and OS probability was equal to 0.85 (95% CI 0.81–0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.97) at 1 year, 0.62 (95% CI 0.55–0.69) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.56–0.71) at 5 years, respectively.

Conclusion

Our study has led us to conclude that LG for AGC is feasible and safe in the general practice of Western institutions when performed by trained surgeons.

Robotic gastric surgery: a monocentric case series and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The technical complexity of D2 lymphadenectomy and esophago-jejunal anastomosis are the main factors that limit the application of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. Robotic assisted gastric surgery provides potential technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy but an improvement in clinical outcomes after robotic surgery has not been demonstrated yet.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data from 128 consecutive patients who had undergone robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at our center institution from April 2017 to June 2020 where retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively updated database. A narrative review was then carried out on PubMed, Embase and Scopus using the following keywords: "gastric cancer," "robotic surgery," "robotic gastrectomy" and "robotic gastric surgery".

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety-eight patients underwent robotic distal gastrectomy and 30 underwent robotic total gastrectomy. The mean value of estimated blood loss was 99.5 ml. No patients required conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42. No tumor involvement of the proximal or distal margin was found in any patient. The median time to first flatus and first oral feeding was on postoperative day 3 and 5, respectively. We registered 6 leakages (4.6%), namely, 1 duodenal stump leakage and 5 anastomotic leakages. No 30-day surgical related mortality was recorded. The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days (range 4-37).

CONCLUSIONS

Published data and our experience suggest that the robotic approach for gastric cancer is safe and feasible with potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer (LOGICA): A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The oncological efficacy and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy are under debate for the Western population with predominantly advanced gastric cancer undergoing multimodality treatment.

METHODS

In 10 experienced upper GI centers in the Netherlands, patients with resectable (cT1-4aN0-3bM0) gastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. No masking was performed. The primary outcome was hospital stay. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. It was hypothesized that laparoscopic gastrectomy leads to shorter hospital stay, less postoperative complications, and equal oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 227 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 115) or open gastrectomy (n = 112). Preoperative chemotherapy was administered to 77 patients (67%) in the laparoscopic group and 87 patients (78%) in the open group. Median hospital stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 5-9) in both groups (P = .34). Median blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group (150 v 300 mL, P < .001), whereas mean operating time was longer (216 v 182 minutes, P < .001). Both groups did not differ regarding postoperative complications (44% v 42%, P = .91), in-hospital mortality (4% v 7%, P = .40), 30-day readmission rate (9.6% v 9.1%, P = 1.00), R0 resection rate (95% v 95%, P = 1.00), median lymph node yield (29 v 29 nodes, P = .49), 1-year overall survival (76% v 78%, P = .74), and global health-related quality of life up to 1 year postoperatively (mean differences between + 1.5 and + 3.6 on a 1-100 scale; 95% CIs include zero).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy did not lead to a shorter hospital stay in this Western multicenter randomized trial of patients with predominantly advanced gastric cancer. Postoperative complications and oncological efficacy did not differ between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2020 for studies, which limited to comparative articles of RH or LH for malignant tumors. Stata14.0 was performed in the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1093 patients (345 RH and 748 LH) were eligible for inclusion. Operative time, tumor size, open procedure rate and the proportion of right hepatectomy were found to be significantly different between RH and LH in the pooled analysis (P < 0.05). Compared to LH, RH was associated with longer operative time, larger tumor size, lower open procedure rate and more common use for right hepatectomy. On the other hand, there was no difference in the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, hospital stay, R0 resection rate, complications, resection margin, left lateral sectionectomy and left hepatectomy (P > 0.05). For malignant tumors that require hepatectomy, robotic approaches have demonstrated similar safety and feasibility to laparoscopy, with lower open procedure rate, were suitable for larger tumor size, and have a high right hepatectomy utilization rate. These results still need to be confirmed by multicenter, high-quality randomized controlled studies.

Short- and long-term comparison of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by the same surgical team: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Research on short-term outcomes and oncology results after robotic gastrectomy (RG) is still limited, especially from a single surgical team. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

METHODS

Between October 2014 and September 2019, 1686 consecutive patients who underwent MIS gastrectomy were enrolled. The patients were divided into RG and LG groups according to surgical type. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on the following variables: age, sex, ASA score, primary tumor location, histologic type, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The secondary outcomes were postoperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups after matching. Compared to the LG group, the RG group had a significantly higher retrieved lymph node (LN) number (32.15 vs 30.82, P = 0.040), more retrieved supra-pancreatic LNs (12.45 vs 11.61, P = 0.028), lower estimated blood loss (73.67 vs 98.08 ml, P < 0.001), but longer operation time (205.18 vs 185.27 min, P < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($13,607 vs $10,928, P < 0.001) in the matched cohort. In the subgroup analysis, we observed that compared with LG, patients with advanced gastric cancer benefitted more from RG surgery. The matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 3-year OS or RFS (log-rank, P = 0.648 and P = 0.951, respectively): 80.3% and 77.0% in LG vs. 81.2% and 76.6% in RG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RG has certain technical advantages over LG, especially in patients with advanced gastric cancer. However, RG does not improve long-term oncology outcomes.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has shown several advantages over open surgery in dealing with GC, although it is still considered a demanding procedure. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is now being employed with increased frequency worldwide and has been reported to overcome some limitations of conventional LG. The aim of this updated meta-analysis is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of RG versus LG for gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library database of published studies comparing RG and LG up to March 2020. The evaluated end-points were intra-operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and a random-effect model was always applied.

RESULTS

Forty retrospective studies describing 17,712 patients met the inclusion criteria. With respect to surgical outcomes, robotic compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with higher operating time [MD 44.73, (95%CI 36.01, 53.45) p < 0.00001] and less intraoperative blood loss [MD -18.24, (95%CI -25.21, -11.26) p < 0.00001] and lower rate of surgical complication in terms of Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3 classification [OR 0.66, (95%CI 0.49, 0.88) p = 0.005]. With respect to oncological outcomes, the RG group showed a significantly increased mean number of retrieved lymph nodes [MD 1.84, (95%CI 0.84, 2.84) p = 0.0003], but mean proximal and distal resection margin distance and the recurrence rate were not significantly different between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to safety, technical feasibility and oncological adequacy, robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable, although the robotic approach seems to achieve better short-term surgical outcomes. Moreover, a higher rate of retrieved lymph nodes was observed in the RG group.

Morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a large cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer in recent year. However, whether RDG could reduce the morbidity when compared to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer and identify the related risk factors.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing RDG or LDG (519 and 957 patients, respectively) at our institution were included in this study. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, and evaluated postoperative morbidity and short-term surgical outcomes in PSM 1032 patients undergoing RDG or LDG.

RESULTS

After PSM, the two groups were well-balanced. The mean blood loss of the RDG group was about 27 mL less than that of the LDG group (112.1 vs 139.0 mL, P < 0.001). The RDG group had more retrieved lymph nodes than that in the LDG group (32.7 v 30.2, P < 0.001). The RDG group showed a similar overall (9.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.682), severe (2.7% vs 3.7%, P = 0.376), local (5.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.783), and systemic complication rates (5.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.688). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (RDG 0% vs LDG 0.2%, P = 1.000). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in most stratified parameters. Age > 65 years and ASA III were identified as two major risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSION

RDG could be a safe and feasible in treating gastric cancer compared to LDG. However, we did not observe significant reduction in postoperative complications of RDG compared with LDG, although the use of robotic system is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment.

Short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy for advanced gastric Cancer: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of RATG compared with LATG for AGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 126 and 257 patients who underwent RATG or LATG, respectively. In addition, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between RATG and LATG for clinicopathological characteristics to reduce bias and compared short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After PSM, the RATG group had a longer mean operation time (291.14 ± 59.18 vs. 270.34 ± 52.22 min, p = 0.003), less intraoperative bleeding (154.37 ± 89.68 vs. 183.77 ± 95.39 ml, p = 0.004) and more N2 tier RLNs (9.07 ± 5.34 vs. 7.56 ± 4.50, p = 0.016) than the LATG group. Additionally, the total RLNs of the RATG group were almost significantly different compared to that of the LATG group (34.90 ± 13.05 vs. 31.91 ± 12.46, p = 0.065). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the length of incision, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, residual disease and postoperative hospital stay. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the RATG and LATG groups after PSM (23.8% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.390). Grade II complications accounted for most of the complications in the two cohorts after PSM. The conversion rates were 4.55 and 8.54% in the RATG and LATG groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.145), and the ratio of splenectomy were 1.59 and 0.39% (p = 0.253). The mortality rates were 0.8 and 0.4% for the RATG and LATG groups, respectively (p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that RATG is comparable to LATG in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.

Gastric Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification, Genomic Characteristics and Treatment Strategies

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and it is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. GC is a multifactorial disease, where both environmental and genetic factors can have an impact on its occurrence and development. The incidence rate of GC rises progressively with age; the median age at diagnosis is 70 years. However, approximately 10% of gastric carcinomas are detected at the age of 45 or younger. Early-onset gastric cancer is a good model to study genetic alterations related to the carcinogenesis process, as young patients are less exposed to environmental carcinogens. Carcinogenesis is a multistage disease process specified by the progressive development of mutations and epigenetic alterations in the expression of various genes, which are responsible for the occurrence of the disease.