Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer with serous invasion: long-term outcomes

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer in North China: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has become a common procedure for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in China. However, there is uncertainty regarding its oncological outcomes compared to open distal gastrectomy (ODG). This study aims to compare the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates among patients who underwent surgery for AGC in northern China.

METHODS

A multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate patients with AGC who were eligible for distal gastrectomy at five tertiary hospitals in North China. In this trial, patients were randomly assigned preoperatively to receive either LDG or ODG in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days and the secondary endpoint was the 3-year DFS rate. This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02464215).

RESULTS

A total of 446 patients were randomly allocated to LDG (n = 223) or ODG group (n = 223) between March 2014 and August 2017. After screening, a total of 214 patients underwent the open surgical approach, while 216 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The 3-year DFS rate was 85.9% for the LDG group and 84.72% for the ODG group, with no significant statistical difference (Hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.68-1.84, P = 0.65). Body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m2, advanced pathologic T4, and pathologic N2-3 category were confirmed as independent risk factors for DFS in the Cox regression.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to ODG, LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy yielded similar outcomes in terms of 3-year DFS rates among patients diagnosed with AGC.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for nonmetastatic T4a gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

​The applicability of laparoscopy to nonmetastatic T4a patients with gastric cancer remains unclear due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival rates of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for these patients through a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and CNKI were examined for relevant studies without language restrictions through July 25, 2023. Individual participant data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed. In addition, data regarding surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns were also collected, which were meta-analyzed using traditional aggregated data.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 1860 patients were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analyses, the results demonstrated that LG was associated with a significantly better DFS (Random-effects model: P = 0.027; Restricted mean survival time [RMST] up to 5 years: P = 0.033) and a comparable OS (Random-effects model: P = 0.135; RMST up to 5 years: P = 0.053) than OG for T4a gastric cancer patients. Two-stage meta-analyses resulted in similar results, with a 13% reduced hazard of cancer-related death (P = 0.04) and 10% reduced hazard of overall mortality (P = 0.11) in the LG group. For secondary outcomes, the pooled results showed an association of LG with less estimated blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and more retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for patients with nonmetastatic T4a disease is associated with a potential survival benefit and improved surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-invasive gastric cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Whether laparoscopic gastrectomy is suitable for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer remains controversial. We performed this study to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with after open gastrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 906 consecutive patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer from January 2004 to December 2014 in our center, who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching, 334 patients were included in each group. Surgical conditions and short- and long-term results were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with less estimated blood loss and longer operation time, while the number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. Patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy had an earlier time to first flatus, first diet, and first ambulation and were discharged earlier. Overall and pulmonary postoperative complication rates were lower in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group. With a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year overall survival was 39.3% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 34.3% in the open gastrectomy group, and the 5-year disease-free survival was 36.4% in the laparoscopic gastrectomy group and 32.7% in the open gastrectomy group. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with better 5-year overall survival in patients aged ≥60 years. The overall recurrence rates and patterns were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an alternative surgical approach for patients with serosa-invasive gastric cancer in terms of short-term outcomes and long-term survival, and it might be more advantageous for certain populations.

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.

15-year experience of laparoscopic gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer: analysis on short-term and long-term oncologic outcome

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is now a widely accepted treatment option for gastric cancer. However, there is insufficient evidence for LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Many retrospective studies have shown that LG for AGC is safe and feasible, but very few studies have shown the actual outcome in general practice. The aim of this study is to analyze our last 15 years of experience in LG for AGC.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review from May 2003 to May 2017 in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. A total of 1592 patients who had LG for AGC were enrolled of which 109 patients with open conversion were excluded. We evaluated the short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes of LG for AGC.

RESULTS

A total of 1483 patients were analyzed. There were 432 cases of total gastrectomy, 982 cases of distal gastrectomy, and 69 cases of proximal gastrectomy. The total complication rate was 9.1% (135/1483), which included wound-related complications (0.7%), postoperative bleeding (0.5%), anastomosis or stump leakage (2.2%), intestinal obstruction (0.9%), pancreatic fistula (0.1%), intra-abdominal abscess (1.6%), and lung morbidity (3.0%). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and above complications was 4.9%. Age was the only significant risk factor in multivariate analysis (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04, P = 0.01). 5-year overall survival stratified by stage was as follows: stage IB 88.9%, stage IIA 88.7%, stage IIB 84.2%, stage IIIA 71.7%, stage IIIB 56.8%, stage IIIC 45.4%, and stage IV 25%. Total recurrence rate was 14.4%, which included local recurrence (1.1%) and distant metastases (13.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

During our 15 years of experience, we have successfully performed 1483 cases of AGC with laparoscopy. Our results showed short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes that were comparable with other studies. LG is safe and feasible in general practice for advanced gastric cancer when performed by experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for high-risk patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still remains unclear whether high-risk patients with gastric cancer can benefit from the application of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes after LG and open gastrectomy (OG) for high-risk patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1994 to June 2018. Patients who had≥1 of the following conditions were defined as high-risk patients: (1) age≥70 years; (2) BMI≥30 kg/m²; (3) ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) grade≥3; or (4) clinical T4 stage (cT4). The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the present meta-analysis, the outcomes of 12 non-randomized controlled studies enrolling 1651 patients (873 in the LG group and 778 in the OG group) were pooled. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LG group than those in the OG group (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between two groups in operative time (P = 0.17) and number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.21). In the LG group, the time to flatus (P < 0.01), time to food intake (P < 0.01), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.01) were significantly shorter than those in the OG group. A lower overall postoperative complication rate was observed in the LG group (P < 0.01). The incidence of surgical (P < 0.01) and non-surgical (P < 0.01) complication was significantly lower in the LG group than that in the OG group. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between LG and OG groups (P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

LG can be a safe and feasible procedure for high-risk patients with gastric cancer.

Long-term oncological outcomes in laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of high-quality nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND

Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several meta-analyses have confirmed that laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of LG for AGC are still needed for further evaluation. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of LG with open gastrectomy (OG) for patients with AGC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1997 to August 2018. Studies comparing the long-term oncological outcomes between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. We performed the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 4494 patients (2273 in LG group and 2221 in OG group) were included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05, P = 0.28), disease-free survival (DFS) rate (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06, P = 0.27), and recurrence rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.04, P = 0.13) were comparable in LG and OG. Subgroup analysis showed the publication year, study region, sample size, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, retrieved lymph nodes, proportion of stage III, and patients with serosa-positive (pT4a) did not influence the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AGC, LG is a feasible surgical procedure alternative to OG in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis based on high-quality retrospective studies and clinical randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Additional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with open gastrectomy (OG) have been published, and the meta-analysis of this subject should be improved.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and high-quality retrospective studies, which compared LG and OG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) treatment and were published in English and Chinese between January 2000 and February 2017, were selected through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database by two reviewers independently. The Jadad Composite Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias for all included studies. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, harvested lymph nodes and 5-year overall survival (OS) were considered as primary endpoints and were compared.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including a total of 9337 cases (5000 in LG and 4337 in OG) were enrolled. LG showed longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. Based on the subgroup analysis of the sample size, however, there was no difference in operative time between LG and OG. The number of harvested lymph nodes, 5-year OS, and postoperative morbidity were similar.

CONCLUSION

LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC, with quicker postoperative recovery and comparable safety and efficacy.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Technical safety and short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been investigated in many clinical trials. However, studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up comparing LAG and open gastrectomy (OG) for AGC have seldom been reported. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of LAG versus open OG for AGC using a propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 459 and 856 patients who underwent LG or OG with D2 lymph node dissection, respectively, for AGC between June 2007 and June 2012. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compensate for heterogeneity between groups. We compared long-term outcomes between the two groups after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched cohort, no significant differences were observed in 5-year overall survival (OS) (52.0% vs. 53.4%; P = 0.805) and disease-free survival (DFS) (46.8% vs. 47.3%; P = 0.963) between the LAG group and OG group. Stratified analysis showed that the 5-year OS and DFS rates were comparable between the two groups in each tumor stage (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that the operation method was not an independent prognostic factor for OS or DFS. Further analysis showed that the recurrence pattern was similar between the LAG group the OG group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LAG is a feasible surgical procedure for AGC in terms of long-term prognosis, although the results should be confirmed by the ongoing randomized controlled trials.