Assessing safety and feasibility of 'pure' laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the West. Review article

Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the Neoadjuvant Era: Current Status, Clinical Implications and Contentious Issues

Despite its decreasing incidence, gastric cancer remains an important global healthcare problem due to its overall high prevalence and high mortality rate. Since the MAGIC and FNLCC/FFCD trials, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been recommended throughout Europe in gastric cancer. Potential benefits of preoperative treatments include a higher rate of R0 resection achieved by downstaging the primary tumor, a likely effect on micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the lymph nodes, and, as a result, improved cancer-related survival. Nevertheless, distortion of anatomical planes of dissection, interstitial fibrosis, and sclerotic tissue changes may increase surgical difficulty. The collection of at least twenty-five lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy would seem to ensure removal of undetectable node metastasis and reduce the likelihood of locoregional recurrence. It is not what you take but what you leave behind that defines survival. Therefore, para-aortic lymph node dissection is safe and effective after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in both therapeutic and prophylactic settings. In this review, the efficacy of adequate lymph node dissection, also in a neoadjuvant setting, has been investigated in the key studies conducted to date on the topic.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Short and Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is widely accepted and routinely performed. However, it is still debated whether the laparoscopic approach is a valid alternative to open gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study is to compare short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LG) and open (OG) total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with AGC.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent LG and OG for ACG between January 2015 and December 2021. Primary endpoints were the following: recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival, 3-year and 5-year overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to compare variables influencing outcomes and survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients included: fifty-three OG and thirty-nine LG. No difference in morbidity and mortality. LG was associated with lower recurrence rates (OG 22.6% versus LG 12.8%, p = 0.048). No differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival; 3-year disease-free survival was improved in the LG group on the univariate analysis but not after the multivariate one. LG was associated with longer operative time, lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Lymph node yield was higher in LG.

CONCLUSION

LG for AGC seems to provide satisfactory clinical and oncological outcomes in medium volume centers, improved postoperative results and possibly lower recurrence rates.

Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Surgery represents the only method for potentially curative intent for gastric cancer (GC) [...].

The Impact of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy on Survival in the USA

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for gastric adenocarcinoma are increasing in prevalence. Although recent studies suggest such approaches are associated with improvements in short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive gastrectomy on long-term survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015. Patient characteristics were stratified by open and minimally invasive approaches and compared using chi-square and t tests. Unadjusted survival functions were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Multivariable modeling of risks factors for survival was analyzed with Cox proportional hazard models. Covariate imbalance was controlled using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The study included 17,449 patients who underwent gastrectomy. Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery improved survival (hazard ratio = 0.86, P < 0.0001). Predictors of worsened survival included community facility type, comorbidities, tumor size, extent of gastrectomy, clinical T and N staging (P < 0.0060 for all). After propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery had a significantly improved survival at 5 years compared to an open approach, 51.9% versus 47.7% (P < 0.0001). Survival was not significantly different between propensity score-matched patients who received laparoscopic and robotic approaches (P = 0.2611).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches for gastric carcinoma are associated with improved long-term survival. There was no significant difference in survival when comparing laparoscopic to robotic gastrectomy. The mechanisms that drive these improvements deserve further investigation.

Digestive tract reconstruction options after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

In addition to the popularity of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), many reconstructive procedures after LG have been reported. Surgical resection and lymphatic dissection determine long-term survival; however, the election of a reconstruction procedure determines the postoperative quality of life for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Presently, no consensus exists regarding the optimal reconstructive procedure. In this review, the current state of digestive tract reconstruction after LG is reviewed. According to the determining influence of the tumor site on the procedures of surgical resection and reconstruction, we divide these reconstruction procedures into three categories consistent with the resection procedures. We focus on the technical tips of every reconstruction procedure and examine the surgical outcomes (length of surgery and blood loss) and postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage and stricture) to facilitate gastrointestinal surgeons to understand the merits and demerits of every reconstruction procedure.