Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A large cohort study

Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer: Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival analysis

INTRODUCTION

Data on laparoscopic treatment of operable gastric cancer from India is sparse. This study aims to document outcomes of laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in an Indian population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy for operable advanced gastric cancer between February 2012 and January 2017 were collected from electronic hospital records supplemented by telephonic interviews and analyzed. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis curves.

RESULTS

In total 121 patients were included. Conversion to open gastrectomy was 5.7%. One hundred and fourteen patients (73 laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy and 41 laparoscopic total gastrectomy) were included for analysis. D2 lymphadenectomy was done in all cases; mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 23.12 ± 9.14 (12-45). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III and IV) was seen in 6.1% of cases with reoperation rate of 3.5% (4/114). Stage 3 disease was seen in 60.6% cases and stage 2 disease in 32.5%. Follow-up data were available for 76.3% of patients with mean follow-up of 29.5 months. Overall survival across all stages was 38.7 months. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 36.7% and 55.9% respectively, across all stages.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy is safe, feasible with similar postoperative complications and comparable survival outcomes across all stages when compared to available literature on open gastrectomy cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy: an Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials for Short-Term Outcomes

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched for randomized control trials comparing outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomies with those patients undergoing open gastrectomies. The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes studied included length of stay, blood loss, d2 gastrectomies, lymph node retrieval, operative time, wound complications, and intraabdominal complications. Systemic review and meta-analysis were done according to MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines. Eleven RCTs consisting of 4614 patients were included in the study. A total of 2452 patients were there in laparoscopic gastrectomy group while 2162 patients were included in open gastrectomy group. Morbidity was significantly low in laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (P = 0.75). There were fewer wound complications in laparoscopic group and no difference intra-abdominal complications in both groups. Blood loss was significantly lesser in laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Hospital stay was similar in both groups (p = 0.30). Operative time was significantly higher in laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic group patients had a lesser number of lymph node retrieval compared to open group (p = 0.002). Laparoscopic group also contained similar advanced staged gastric cancer than open gastrectomies (p = 0.64). Laparoscopic gastrectomies were associated with lesser wound-related complications without decreasing hospital stay with a smaller number of lymph nodes retrieval.

Is Laparoscopic Gastrectomy More Advantageous for Elderly Patients Than for Young Patients with Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is now practiced widely, but it is unclear whether LG is the appropriate approach for elderly patients with resectable advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to examine whether LG is more or less advantageous for elderly patients than for young patients.

METHODS

We collected data on 571 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for pT2-4 gastric cancer between January 2001 and December 2015. After adjustment with one-to-one propensity score matching, short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the LG and open gastrectomy (OG) groups among young (age < 70 years) and elderly (age ≥ 70 years) patients.

RESULTS

The LG group had a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than the OG group among young and elderly patients. There were no significant differences regarding complications. Although disease-specific survival was similar between the LG and OG groups among young and elderly patients, LG was associated with more favorable overall survival than OG only among elderly patients (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.35-1.26). Death from respiratory diseases occurred more frequently in the OG group (10.9%) than in the LG group (0%) for elderly patients (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

LG for resectable advanced gastric cancer was not inferior to OG in terms of both short-term and long-term outcomes regardless of patient age. In elderly patients, LG may improve overall survival by reducing mortality from respiratory diseases.

Pooled analysis of the oncological outcomes in robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Aim:

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is more and more widely used in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of RG have not been well evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods:

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched until August 2019. Eligible studies were analysed for comparison of oncological outcomes between RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer.

Results:

Eleven retrospective comparative studies, which included 1347 (32.52%) patients in the RG group and 2795 (67.48%) patients in the LG group, were selected for the analysis. Meta-analysis of the 11 included studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the OS between the RG and LG groups (hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.97, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.80–1.19, P = 0.80). Six studies evaluated disease-free survival (DFS), and pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in DFS between RG group and LG group (HR = 0.94, 95% CIs = 0.72–1.23, P = 0.65). According to the odds ratio (OR) analysis, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS and 5-year DFS between the RG and LG groups. Nine articles reported the recurrence rate, and the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the RG and LG groups (OR = 0.88, 95% CIs = 0.69–1.12, P = 0.31).

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis indicated that the long-term oncological outcomes in the RG group were similar to that in the LG group.

[Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer : Operative and postoperative results]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive gastrectomy is increasingly becoming established worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG); however, the majority of available articles in the literature refer to Asian populations and early stages of gastric cancer. This makes an international comparison difficult due to a discrepancy in patient populations and tumor biology as well as Asian and western treatment approaches. Little is known, therefore, whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) can be performed in advanced cancer, in particular with respect to laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy, with sufficient radicality and safety in this country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All gastrectomies performed for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer with clinical UICC stages 2 and 3 between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed. A case match by age, gender and UICC stage was performed to compare the operative and early postoperative results of LG and OG.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients with advanced gastric cancer were analyzed. Of these 81 patients (33.3%) underwent LG. The operative time for LG was around 74 min longer (279.2 min vs. 353.4 min, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001), the hospital stay after LG was around 4 days shorter (22.9 days vs. 18.4 days, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001). Significantly more lymph nodes were resected by LG (24.1 lymph nodes vs. 28.8 lymph nodes, OG vs. LG; p < 0.001). In terms of morbidity and mortality there were no differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that minimally invasive gastrectomy can be performed safely and with comparable histopathological results to open surgery, even in advanced gastric cancer in western populations; however, larger case series and evidence from high-quality studies are urgently needed especially to compare short-term and long-term survival.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-Term Survival after Minimally Invasive Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Patients in the United States and China

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the long-term survival of patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy and those undergoing open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) in the United States and China.

METHODS

Data on patients with GA who underwent gastrectomy without neoadjuvant therapy were retrieved from prospectively maintained databases at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (FMUUH). Using propensity score-matching (PSM), equally sized cohorts of patients with similar clinical and pathologic characteristics who underwent minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy were selected. The primary end point of the study was 5-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The study identified 479 patients who underwent gastrectomy at MSKCC between 2000 and 2012 and 2935 patients who underwent gastrectomy at FMUUH between 2006 and 2014. Of the total 3432 patients, 1355 underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy, and 2059 underwent open gastrectomy. All the patients had at least 5 years of potential follow-up evaluation. Before PSM, most patient characteristics differed significantly between the patients undergoing the two types of surgery. After PSM, each cohort included 889 matched patients, and the actual 5-year OS did not differ significantly between the two cohorts, with an OS rate of 54% after minimally invasive gastrectomy and 50.4% after open gastrectomy (p = 0.205). Subgroup analysis confirmed that survival was similar between surgical cohorts among the patients for each stage of GA and for those undergoing distal versus total/proximal gastrectomy. In the multivariable analysis, surgical approach was not an independent prognostic factor.

CONCLUSIONS

After PSM of U.S. and Chinese patients with GA undergoing gastrectomy, long-term survival did not differ significantly between the patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy and those undergoing open gastrectomy.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients' clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer (P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss (P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG (P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower (P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay (P = 0.890), the time to first flatus (P = 0.448), the postoperative complication (P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation (P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.