Modified versus standard D2 lymphadenectomy in total gastrectomy for nonjunctional gastric carcinoma with lymph node metastasis

Optimal lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a narrative review

The management of gastric cancer has long been debated, particularly the extent of lymph node (LN) dissection required during curative surgery. LN invasion stands out as the most critical prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Historically, Japanese academic societies were the pioneers in defining a classification system for regional gastric LN stations, numbering them from 1 to 16. This classification was later used to differentiate between different types of LN dissection, such as D1, D2 and D3. However, these definitions were often considered too complex to be universally adopted, resulting in wide variations in recommendations from one country to another and making it difficult to compare published studies. In addition, the optimal extent of LN dissection remains uncertain, with initially recommended dissections being extensive but associated with significant morbidity without a clear survival benefit. The aim of this review is to make a case for extending LN dissection based on the existing literature, which includes a comprehensive examination of the current definitions of lymphadenectomy and an analysis of the results of all randomised controlled trials evaluating morbidity, mortality and long-term survival associated with different types of LN dissection. Finally, we provide a summary of the various recommendations issued by organizations such as the Japanese Gastric Research Association, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the French National Thesaurus of Digestive Oncology.

Is No. 12a Lymph Node Dissection Compliance Necessary in Patients Who Undergo D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinomas? A Population-Based Retrospective Propensity Score Matching Study

LN dissection is essential for accurately staging and improving GC patient prognosis. However, the compliance rate for No. 12a LND in practice is low, and its necessity is controversial. Data from GC patients who underwent total gastrectomy (TG)/distal gastrectomy (DG) plus D2 lymphadenectomy between January 2000 and December 2017 at West China Hospital, Sichuan University were reviewed. No. 12a LND noncompliance's effect on the long-term prognosis of patients with GC after D2 gastrectomy was explored. Of the 2788 patients included, No. 12a LND noncompliance occurred in 1753 patients (62.9%). Among 1035 patients with assessable LNs from station 12a, 98 (9.5%) had positive LNs detected at station 12a. No. 12a LN metastasis patients (stage IV not included) had significantly better overall survival (OS) than TNM stage IV patients (p = 0.006). Patients with No. 12a LND compliance had a significantly higher OS than those without, both before (p < 0.001) and after (p < 0.001) PSM. Cox multivariate analysis confirmed that No. 12a LND noncompliance was an independent prognostic factor before (HR 1.323, 95% CI 1.171-1.496, p < 0.001) and after (HR 1.353, 95% CI 1.173-1.560, p < 0.001) PSM. In conclusion, noncompliance with No. 12a LND compromised the long-term survival of patients who underwent D2 gastrectomy for GC.

Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LTGD2) remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares surgical and survival outcomes of LTGD2 and open total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (OTGD2) for gastric cancer.

Methods

Controlled studies comparing LTGD2 and OTGD2 published before November 2021 were retrieved via database searches. We compared intraoperative outcomes, pathological data, postoperative outcomes, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

17 studies were included, containing 4742 patients. Compared with OTGD2, the LTGD2 group had less blood loss (mean difference [MD] = − 122.48; 95% CI: − 187.60, − 57.37; P = 0.0002), fewer analgesic medication (MD = -2.48; 95% CI: − 2.69, − 2.27; P < 0.00001), earlier first flatus (MD = − 1.03; 95% CI: − 1.80, − 0.26; P = 0.009), earlier initial food intake (MD = − 0.89; 95% CI: − 1.09, − 0.68; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD = − 3.24; 95% CI: − 3.75, − 2.73; P < 0.00001). The LTGD2 group had lower postoperative total complication ratio (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.92; P = 0.006), incision (OR = 0.50; 95% CI:0.31, 0.79; P = 0.003) and pulmonary (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.96; P = 0.03) complication rates, but similar rates of other complications and mortality. Total number of dissected lymph nodes were similar, but the number of No. 10 dissected nodes was less with LTGD2 (MD = − 0.31; 95% CI: − 0.46, − 0.16; P < 0.0001). There was no difference in 5-year OS (P = 0.19) and DFS (P = 0.34) between LTGD2 and OTGD2 groups.

Conclusions

LTGD2 produces small trauma, fast postoperative recovery and small length of hospital stays than OTGD2, and had similar long-term clinical efficacy as OTGD2. However, these results still need further high-quality prospective randomized controlled trials confirmation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-022-00748-2.

Risk of station 12a lymph node metastasis in patients with lower-third gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversy over the issue that No. 12a lymph node involvement is distant or regional metastasis remains, and the possible inclusion of 12a lymph nodes in D2 lymphadenectomy is unclear. As reported, gastric cancer (GC) located in the lower third is highly related to the metastasis of station 12a lymph nodes.

AIM

To investigate whether the clinicopathological factors and metastasis status of other perigastric nodes can predict station 12a lymph node metastasis and evaluate the prognostic significance of station 12a lymph node dissection in patients with lower-third GC.

METHODS

A total of 147 patients with lower-third GC who underwent D2 or D2+ lymphadenectomy, including station 12a lymph node dissection, were included in this retrospective study from June 2003 to March 2011. Survival prognoses were compared between patients with or without station 12a lymph node metastasis. Logistic regression analyses were used to clarify the association between station 12a lymph node metastasis and clinicopathological factors or metastasis status of other perigastric nodes. The metastasis status of each regional lymph node was evaluated to identify the possible predictors of station 12a lymph node metastasis.

RESULTS

Metastasis to station 12a lymph nodes was observed in 18 patients with lower-third GC, but not in 129 patients. The incidence of station 12a lymph node involvement was reported as 12.2% in patients with lower-third GC. The overall survival of patients without station 12a lymph node metastasis was significantly better than that of patients with station 12a metastasis (P < 0.001), which could also be seen in patients with or without extranodal soft tissue invasion. Station 12a lymph node metastasis and extranodal soft tissue invasion were identified as independent predictors of poor prognosis in patients with lower-third GC. Advanced pN stage was defined as independent risk factor significantly correlated with station 12a lymph node positivity. Station 3 lymph node staus was also proven to be significantly correlated with station 12a lymph node involvement.

CONCLUSION

Metastasis of station 12a lymph nodes could be considered an independent prognosis factor for patients with lower-third GC. The dissection of station 12a lymph nodes may not be ignored in D2 or D2+ lymphadenectomy due to difficulties in predicting station 12a lymph node metastasis.

Extent of gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide and is associated with a high frequency of nodal metastasis. The value of multimodality therapy is well-established, but gastric resection and locoregional lymph node dissection are important mainstays in potentially curative therapy. However, there has been considerable regional variation in surgical approach and debate regarding the ideal extent of gastric resection, gastric reconstruction, and extent of lymphadenectomy. This chapter outlines the current evidence in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The advent of minimally invasive approaches to gastric operations is also discussed.

Pancreatic Fistula after D1+/D2 Radical Gastrectomy according to the Updated International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Criteria: Risk Factors and Clinical Consequences. Experience of Surgeons with High Caseloads in a Single Surgical Center in Eastern Europe

Purpose

Incidence, risk factors, and clinical consequences of pancreatic fistula (POPF) after D1+/D2 radical gastrectomy have not been well investigated in Western patients, particularly those from Eastern Europe.

Materials and Methods

A total of 358 D1+/D2 radical gastrectomies were performed by surgeons with high caseloads in a single surgical center from 2002 to 2017. A retrospective analysis of data that were prospectively gathered in an electronic database was performed. POPF was defined and graded according to the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) criteria. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of POPF. Additionally, the impact of POPF on early complications and long-term outcomes were investigated.

Results

POPF was observed in 20 patients (5.6%), according to the updated ISGPS grading system. Cardiovascular comorbidities emerged as the single independent predictor of POPF formation (risk ratio, 3.051; 95% confidence interval, 1.161–8.019; P=0.024). POPF occurrence was associated with statistically significant increased rates of postoperative hemorrhage requiring re-laparotomy (P=0.029), anastomotic leak (P=0.002), 90-day mortality (P=0.036), and prolonged hospital stay (P<0.001). The long-term survival of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was not affected by POPF (P=0.661).

Conclusions

In this large series of Eastern European patients, the clinically relevant rate of POPF after D1+/D2 radical gastrectomy was low. The presence of co-existing cardiovascular disease favored the occurrence of POPF and was associated with an increased risk of postoperative bleeding, anastomotic leak, 90-day mortality, and prolonged hospital stay. POPF was not found to affect the long-term survival of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Is splenic hilar lymph node dissection necessary for proximal gastric cancer surgery?

Advanced proximal gastric cancer sometimes metastasizes to the splenic hilar lymph nodes (No. 10 LN). Total gastrectomy combined with splenectomy is performed for complete removal of the No. 10 LN and was historically a standard procedure in Japan. However, splenectomy is associated with several disadvantages for patients, such as increased postoperative morbidity, risk of thrombogenic disease, fatal infection from encapsulated bacteria, and the development of other types of cancer in the long term because of loss of immune function. Therefore, splenectomy should only be performed when its estimated oncological effect exceeds such disadvantages. A Japanese randomized controlled trial (JCOG0110) clearly demonstrated that prophylactic splenectomy is not necessary unless the tumor has invaded the greater curvature; thus, splenectomy is no longer routinely performed in Japan. However, several retrospective studies have shown a comparatively high incidence of No. 10 LN metastasis and therapeutic value from LN dissection at that station in the tumors invading the greater curvature. Similar tendencies have also been reported in type 4 or remnant gastric cancer involving the greater curvature. In view of these facts, No. 10 LN dissection is presently recommended for such patients; however, robust evidence is lacking. In recent years, laparoscopic/robotic spleen-preserving splenic hilar dissection utilizing augmented visualization without pancreatic mobilization has been developed. This procedure is expected to replace prophylactic splenectomy and provide an equal oncological effect with lower morbidity. In Japan, a prospective phase-II study (JCOG1809) is currently ongoing to investigate the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

Pattern of No. 12a lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer

Objective

The current standard D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer (GC) includes dissection of lymph nodes (LNs) along the proper hepatic artery (No. 12a), however, the survival benefit remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern of No. 12a LN metastasis (LNM) in GC and explore the indications for No. 12a LN dissection.

Methods

Medical records of 413 consecutive GC patients who underwent curative surgery in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University between January 2015 and December 2018 were enrolled and reviewed retrospectively. The correlation between No. 12a LNM and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients was analyzed.

Results

The overall incidence of No. 12a LNM was 2.67% (11/413). Tumor location (P=0.012), depth of tumor infiltration (P<0.01) and N stage (P=0.018) were significant factors associated with No. 12a LNM. All the tumors with No. 12a LNM involved the lower third of the stomach and were in T3−4 stages. Patients with No. 12a LNM had extensive LNM than those without (20.91±4.25vs. 5.0±0.54, P<0.001). For advanced GC patients (stage III/IV) with tumors involving the lower third of the stomach, the incidence of No. 12a LNM increased to 10.7% (11/103). Patients with No. 12a LNM had a significantly poorer recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P=0.005) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.017). According to the result of multivariable Cox regression, No. 12a LNM was not an independent impact factor on RFS and OS.

Conclusions

The overall incidence of No. 12a LNM was low but it was much higher in GC patients who had very advanced tumors involving the lower third of the stomach. No. 12a LN dissection should be considered for these patients to improve the survival outcomes.

[Distal subtotal gastrectomy and gastreectomy in surgical treatment of patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) devoted to distal subtotal gastrectomy and gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with distal gastric cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RCTs were searched in the electronic library, the Cochrane Community database, and PubMed database. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Community experts (Higgins et al. 2019). Mathematical calculations of a meta-analysis were made using RevMan 5.3 software package. Statistical criteria were calculated for relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and significance level (p).

RESULTS

Seven primary RCTs were selected. A total number of 1463 surgical interventions with D2 lymphadenectomy were observed (805 patients underwent distal subtotal gastrectomy, 658 - gastrectomy). Postoperative mortality is significantly higher (6.5% and 2.6%) after gastrectomy compared to subtotal distal gastrectomy (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.34-3.64, I² 0%, fixed effect model). Postoperative complications are also significantly more common (28% and 14%) after gastrectomy (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.16-2.55, I² heterogeneity 49%, random effect model). Differences in overall five-year survival after gastrectomy and subtotal distal resection (51.6% and 60.8%) are insignificant (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.22, I² 90%, random effect model, general reverse inversion).

CONCLUSION

The choice of distal subtotal gastrectomy and gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with distal gastric cancer is not regulated by evidence-based medicine. The boundaries of minimal surgical clearance from the tumor edge vary from 2.5 cm to 6 cm. An updated meta-analysis shows that postoperative mortality and morbidity are significantly higher after gastrectomy compared to distal subtotal gastrectomy while overall 5-year survival is similar.

Adjuvant chemotherapy is superior to chemoradiation after D2 surgery for gastric cancer in the per-protocol analysis of the randomized CRITICS trial

BACKGROUND

The Intergroup 0116 and the MAGIC trials changed clinical practice for resectable gastric cancer in the Western world. In these trials, overall survival improved with post-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy (CT). Intention-to-treat analysis in the CRITICS trial of post-operative CT or post-operative CRT did not show a survival difference. The current study reports on the per-protocol (PP) analysis of the CRITICS trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The CRITICS trial was a randomized, controlled trial in which 788 patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric or esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were included. Before start of preoperative CT, patients from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were randomly assigned to receive post-operative CT or CRT. For the current analysis, only patients who started their allocated post-operative treatment were included. Since it is uncertain that the two treatment arms are balanced in such PP analysis, adjusted proportional hazards regression analysis and inverse probability weighted analysis were used to minimize the risk of selection bias and to estimate and compare overall and event-free survival.

RESULTS

Of the 788 patients, 478 started post-operative treatment according to protocol, 233 (59%) patients in the CT group and 245 (62%) patients in the CRT group. Patient and tumor characteristics between the groups before start of the post-operative treatment were not different. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years since the start of post-operative treatment, the 5-year overall survival was 57.9% (95% confidence interval: 51.4% to 64.3%) in the CT group versus 45.5% (95% confidence interval: 39.2% to 51.8%) in the CRT group (adjusted hazard ratio CRT versus CT: 1.62 (1.24-2.12), P = 0.0004). Inverse probability weighted analysis resulted in similar hazard ratios.

CONCLUSION

After adjustment for all known confounding factors, the PP analysis of patients who started the allocated post-operative treatment in the CRITICS trial showed that the CT group had a significantly better 5-year overall survival than the CRT group (NCT00407186).

Comparative Effectiveness of Lymphadenectomy Strategies During Curative Resection for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term effectiveness of three lymphadenectomy strategies in patients with gastric cancer. We hypothesized that, compared with the traditional standard (D2) lymph node dissection strategy, the less aggressive modified standard (mD2) lymphadenectomy may offer superior effectiveness due to reduced operative morbidity and comparable long-term recurrence-free survival.

METHODS

A Markov decision analysis model was created to simulate 5-year outcomes across three lymphadenectomy approaches for gastric cancer: limited regional (D1), traditional standard (D2), and modified standard (mD2). The primary outcome was discounted quality-adjusted life-years (dQALY). Model variable estimates were derived from outcomes data and quality of life estimates published in Europe and America within the last 15 years. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for clinically relevant variables.

RESULTS

The mD2 lymphadenectomy offered 3.03 dQALY over 5 years, outperforming D2 (2.62 dQALY) and D1 (2.37 dQALY). Monte Carlo simulations indicated that both mD2 and D2 lymph node dissection strategies outperformed D1 in 94.9% of simulations. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the mD2 approach would be less effective than D2 if the perioperative mortality rate of mD2 was greater than 6.9% (3.2% baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Across modern series, the modified standard mD2 lymphadenectomy is an effective alternative to the traditional D2 lymphadenectomy for patients with gastric cancer. A D1-limited regional lymphadenectomy is not recommended during gastric cancer resection.

The value of spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy in total gastrectomy for gastric and esophagogastric junctional adenocarcinomas: A long-term retrospective propensity score match study from a high-volume institution in China

BACKGROUND

The benefit of removing the splenic lymph nodes in patients with proximal gastric cancer has been controversial. The purpose of our study was to investigate the importance of performing a splenic hilar lymph node dissection without splenectomy in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2015, we retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent a curative total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Propensity score matching was used to balance any potential discrepancy of the other covariates between patients with and without splenic hilar lymph node dissection. Survival analysis, Cox univariate and multivariate analysis, and subgroups analysis were conducted to determine the value of splenic hilar lymph node dissection. After matching, 2 nomograms among patients with and without splenic hilar lymph node dissection were established respectively, the C-index, calibration curve and decision curve analysis were used to further evaluate the value of splenic hilar lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The rate of metastatic splenic hilar lymph nodes in the 274 patients undergoing splenic hilar lymph node dissection was 16.4% (45/274). Patients undergoing splenic hilar lymph node dissection had better survival outcomes than those not undergoing splenic hilar lymph node dissection before (P = .003) and after (P = .003) propensity score matching. Cox multivariate analysis also confirmed that splenic hilar lymph node dissection was an independent prognostic factor both before (hazard ratio 1.284, 95% confidence interval 1.042-1.583, P = .019) and after (hazard ratio 1.480, 95% confidence interval 1.156-1.894, P = .002) propensity score matching. Subgroup analysis indicted that splenic hilar lymph node dissection offered better survival outcomes for esophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma (P < .001, P for interaction = .018). After propensity score matching, the nomogram of patients with splenic hilar lymph node dissection (C-index 0.735, 95% confidence interval 0.695-0.774) also indicated a statistically significant advantage compared with that without splenic hilar lymph node dissection (C-index 0.708, 95% confidence interval 0.668-0.748, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymph node dissection should be an essential procedure among patients undergoing total gastrectomy.

Oncologic feasibility of D1+ gastrectomy for patients with cT1N1, cT2N0-1, or cT3N0 gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

D2 gastrectomy has shown a survival benefit in patients with highly advanced gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether D2 gastrectomy is required for patients with early-stage advanced gastric cancer or early gastric cancer with limited lymph node metastasis. This analysis aimed to clarify the oncologic feasibility of D1+ gastrectomy in patients with cT1N1, cT2N0-1, or cT3N0 gastric cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis included 466 patients with cT1N1, cT2N0-1, or cT3N0 gastric cancer who received curative gastrectomy with either D2 or D1+ dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the D2 group (n = 406) and the D1+ group (n = 60).

RESULTS

The number of patients with higher age and higher comorbidity index was greater in the D1+ group than in the D2 group. Postoperative complications were significantly lower in the D1+ group than in the D2 group (10.0% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.004). No statistically significant difference in 5-year overall survival (p = 0.146) and disease-specific survival (p = 0.807) between the groups was noted. The incidence of local recurrences (p = 0.500) and that of lymph node recurrences (p = 1.000) were also similar between the groups. Multivariable analysis for overall survival identified age, clinical node-positive status, high Charlson score (≥3), advanced pathological stage (≥III), and postoperative complication (grade ≥ II) as independent prognostic factors. The propensity score-matched analysis showed very similar survival outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

D1+ gastrectomy may be oncologically feasible for patients with cT1N1, cT2N0-1, or cT3N0 stage gastric cancer.

D1-plus vs D2 nodal dissection in gastric cancer: a propensity score matched comparison and review of published literature

Background

The results of D1-plus lymphadenectomy following gastric resection are seldom investigated. The aim of this study was to compare results of D1-plus vs D2 resections and to provide a literature review.

Methods

Patients who underwent upfront R0 gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2016 in three Institutions were selected using propensity scores and categorized according to lymphadenectomy. Statistical analyses were performed for the nodal harvest (LNH) and survival. Published literature comparing D1-plus and D2 was reviewed and analyzed according to PICO and PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Two matched groups of 93 D1-plus and 93 D2 resections were selected. LNH was significantly greater in D2 vs D1-plus dissections (mean 31.2 vs 27.2, p 0.04), however LNH distribution was similar. The cumulative incidence curves for overall survival, disease free and disease specific events did not report significant differences, however Cox regression analysis disclosed that total gastrectomies (HR 1.8; 95% 1.0–2.9), advanced stages (HR 5.9; 95% 3.4–10.3) and D1-plus nodal dissection (HR 2.1; 95% 1.26–3.50) independently correlated with disease free survival. Literature review including 297 D1-plus and 556 D2 lymphadenectomies documented LNH in favor of D2 sub-group (SMD -0.772; 95%CI -1.222- -0.322).

Conclusion

D2 provided greater LNH than D1-plus dissections; prospective studies should aim to investigate long-term survival of D1-plus lymphadenectomy.

The role of bursectomy in the surgical management of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review

In order to delineate the exact role of bursectomy (BS) in gastric cancer surgery, we designed and conducted the present meta-analysis. This meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature review of the electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was introduced for the validation of the pooled analyses. The level of evidence was attributed based on the GRADE approach. Overall, nine studies and 3599 patients were included in our meta-analysis. BS did not lead to an increase in the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.42, p = 0.09). Equivalence was, also, identified in all specific postoperative complications. Similarly, mortality rates were comparable (p = 0.69). Moreover, BS was related to a significantly higher operative time (p < 0.001) and perioperative blood loss (p = 0.002). Finally, resection of the omental bursa was not associated with improved R0 excision rates (p = 0.92), lymph node harvest (p = 0.1) or survival outcomes (OS p = 0.15 and DFS p = 0.97). BS displayed a suboptimal perioperative performance without any significant oncological efficacy. Due to certain limitations and the low level of evidence, further high-quality RCTs are required.

Disadvantages of Complete No. 10 Lymph Node Dissection in Gastric Cancer and the Possibility of Spleen-Preserving Dissection: Review

Splenic hilar lymph node dissection has been the standard treatment for advanced proximal gastric cancer. Splenectomy is typically performed as part of this procedure. However, splenectomy has some disadvantages, such as increased risk of postoperative complications, especially pancreatic fistula. Moreover, patients who underwent splenectomy are vulnerable to potentially fatal infection caused by encapsulated bacteria. Furthermore, several studies have shown an association of splenectomy with cancer development and increased risk of thromboembolic events. Therefore, splenectomy should be avoided if it does not confer a distinct oncological advantage. Most studies that compared patients who underwent splenectomy and those who did not failed to demonstrate the efficacy of splenectomy. Based on the results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Japan, prophylactic dissection with splenectomy is no longer recommended in patients with gastric cancer with no invasion of the greater curvature. However, patients with greater curvature invasion or those with remnant gastric cancer still need to undergo splenectomy to facilitate splenic hilar node dissection. Spleen-preserving splenic hilar node dissection is a new procedure that may help delink splenic hilar node dissection and splenectomy. In this review, we examine the evidence pertaining to the efficacy and disadvantages of splenectomy. We discuss the possibility of spleen-preserving surgery for prophylactic splenic hilar node dissection to overcome the disadvantages of splenectomy.

Surgical choice of proximal gastric cancer in China: a retrospective study of a 30-year experience from a single center in China

Background: Total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is indicated for proximal advanced gastric cancer located in the upper one-third of the stomach; however, due to preserved function and clinical benefits of a proximal gastrectomy, the choice of a surgical method for patients with proximal early-stage gastric cancer remains controversial.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving 649 patients with proximal gastric cancer. The clinical-pathological features, characteristics, lymph node metastatic patterns, prognosis, postoperative complications, and recurrence were compared between the patients who underwent proximal and total gastrectomies with different T and N stages.Results: The lymph node metastatic rates among T stages were significantly different. There was no difference in overall survival rates for stage Ia, Ib, and IIa patients but significant difference in T3 and T4 stages who underwent proximal and total gastrectomy. Complications were more frequently detected in patients who underwent total gastrectomy than proximal gastrectomy.Conclusion: Considering the survival benefits and preserved function, proximal gastrectomy can be performed safely in stage Ia and Ib gastric cancer (T1N0, T1N1, and T2N0) with an excellent remission rate. Proximal gastrectomy is not recommended for advanced gastric cancer.

In Patients with Localized and Resectable Gastric Cancer, What is the Optimal Extent of Lymph Node Dissection-D1 Versus D2 Versus D3?

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the treatment of patients with gastric cancer, the debate over the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy continues.

METHOD

A review of the classification, rationale for, and boundaries of lymphadenectomy is presented. A review of the available literature comparing D1 versus D2 versus D3 lymphadenectomy was performed and included randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative and non-comparative studies.

RESULTS

Earlier studies demonstrated increased morbidity with D2 compared with D1 lymphadenectomy, with no significant survival benefit. More recent studies have demonstrated survival benefit of a pancreas and spleen-sparing D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced, node-positive tumors. Para-aortic/D3 dissections contribute to increased morbidity, with no survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma, a D2 lymph node dissection preserving the pancreas and spleen should be considered standard for optimal staging and treatment, provided it is performed by surgeons with sufficient expertise. Extended lymph node dissections beyond D2 should not be routinely performed as it has been shown to have increased morbidity, with no improvement in outcomes. While systemic chemotherapy should be considered standard in patients undergoing D2 lymphadenectomy, the role of adjuvant radiation continues to evolve.

Increased circulating levels of vascular endothelial growth factor C can predict outcome in resectable gastric cancer patients

Background

Neoangiogenesis has proven to be a relevant pathogenetic mechanism in gastric cancer (GC) and lymphatic spread represents an important well-known prognostic factor. Vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF-C) plays a key role in lymphangiogenesis and its blood levels in GC patients are easily measurable. This analysis aimed to investigate the prognostic role of preoperative VEGF-C blood levels.

Methods

VEGF-C serum levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay (ELISA) in 186 patients observed at our institution from January 2004 until December 2009 and 82 healthy subjects. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0.

Results

VEGF-C levels were significantly higher in GC patients (median: 287.4 pg/mL; range, 76.2-865.2 pg/mL) than in the control group (median VEGF-C: 31 pg/mL; range, 12-97 pg/mL). A significant correlation between VEGF-C levels, T, N and tumor stage has been described. The median overall survival (OS) was statistically significantly higher in pts with low serum VEGF-C levels [median: not reached (NR) vs. 26 months; P<0.0001]. Higher preoperative VEGF-C levels correlated also with earlier disease relapse and poor disease-free survival (DFS) (median NR in each subgroup, P=0.005). Furthermore, high VEGF-C levels [hazard ratio (HR) =2.7; P=0.018] and tumor grading (HR =0.44; P=0.007) were independent prognostic factors for OS at multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Our study showed that increased VEGF-C levels are significantly associated with advanced regional lymph node involvement and poor OS and DFS in pts with resected GC paving the way to a possible application as prognostic factor in the clinical practice.

Does Lymphadenectomy with at Least 15 Perigastric Lymph Nodes Retrieval Promise an Improved Survival for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Southern China

Background: Specific guidelines recommend at least 15 or 16 lymph nodes (LNs) be examined to adequately assess nodal category of gastric cancer (GC), but the requirement for minimum number of regional LNs retrieval is not mentioned. This study aims to investigate survival significance from various numbers of perigastric (N1) LNs retrieval and to determine an optimal number harvested in such region.

Study design: From April 1994 to March 2012, 1003 resectable GC patients with at least 15 LNs examined were included. Patients with at least 15 N1 nodes retrieval were assigned into study group, with the rest into control group. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was compared between two groups, and an optimal number of examined N1 nodes was detected by a survival joinpoint analysis.

Results: 635 (63.3%) patients in study group had median 22 (range, 15-75) N1 nodes and 3 (range, 0-74) positive N1 nodes retrieval, with median 10 (range, 0-14) N1 nodes and 1 (range, 0-29) metastatic N1 nodes examined in control group. The number of N1 nodes retrieval was associated with tumor location (P=0.007), tumor stage (P<0.001) and total number of harvested LNs (r=0.691, P<0.001). Median survival time (79.0 vs. 72.0 months, P=0.462) and actual 5-year OS rate (41.0% vs. 39.2%, P=0.463) were slightly improved in study group compared with control group, with significance obtained via stage-by-stage analysis. The joinpoint analysis indicated that at least seven N1 nodes retrieval achieved survival significance (81.0 vs. 35.0 months, P=0.036), with survival superiority remained until reaching up to 15 N1 nodes.

Conclusion: Adequate retrieval of perigastric LNs is essential for radical gastrectomy. A harvest of at least 7-15 perigastric LNs could achieve long-term survival benefit for GC patients.

Metastatic patterns and surgical methods for lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 in proximal gastric cancer

Objective

The current surgical treatment guidelines for early proximal gastric cancer (PGC) still lack agreement. Lymphadenectomy of lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 is the major difference between total and proximal gastrectomy. We elucidated the appropriate surgical procedure for PGC by investigating the pathological characteristics and prognostic significance of lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6.

Methods

In total, 333 PGC patients who underwent total gastrectomy were enrolled in this study. We investigated their clinicopathological characteristics and the metastatic patterns of the lymph nodes. Patients with metastasis in lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 were combined into one group and we compared the difference in survival between those with and without metastasis in lymph nodes No. 5, 6 (lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 in any group of metastasis) for different subgroups.

Results

The metastatic rates for lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 in PGC were 9.91% and 16.11%, respectively. The metastatic rate for both lymph nodes No. 5, 6 was 20.42%. Multivariate analysis showed that positive metastasis in lymph node No. 4, depth of invasion, and tumor size were independently correlated with the presence of metastasis in lymph nodes No. 5, 6.

Conclusions

When lymph node No. 4 is positive (intraoperative pathology) or tumor size ≥5 cm or T4 stage, lymphadenectomy should be performed for lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6, and total gastrectomy is recommended.

Advanced gastric cancer: the value of surgery

Gastric cancer is a common disease with high mortality. The definition of advanced gastric cancer is still debated. Radical surgery associated to appropriate systemic and intra-abdominal chemotherapy is the gold standard treatment. In presence of peritoneal carcinosis, reaching a complete cytoreduction is the key to achieve long-term survival. Adequate lymphadenectomy is also fundamental. Conversion therapy could be applied to selected IV stage patients. No definitive evidences exist regarding the oncological and surgical superiority of mini-invasive approaches over the classical open techniques.

Palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for incurable advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether palliative gastrectomy combined with chemotherapy can improve the survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to clarify whether palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy can benefit patients with incurable advanced gastric cancer and to explore the best candidates in this patient population.

METHODS

We searched the literature systematically using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. And HRs and their 95% CIs were used to express the results for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial with 175 patients and 12 cohort studies with 2,193 patients were analyzed. The pooled HR for OS (HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.29-0.65, P<0.001), subgroup analysis of stage M1 (HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.40-0.72, P<0.001), peritoneal dissemination (HR=0.46, 95% CI=0.28-0.73, P=0.001), and liver metastasis (HR=0.46, 95% CI=0.33-0.65, P<0.001) all indicated the superiority of palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy. However, the pooled HR for PFS (HR=0.61, 95% CI=0.33-1.13, P=0.110) got separate outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy can improve OS for incurable advanced gastric cancer. In addition, analyses based on liver metastasis and peritoneal dissemination demonstrated the advantages of palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy. However, the PFS of incurable advanced gastric cancer with palliative gastrectomy plus chemotherapy was no better than that under chemotherapy alone.

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The development of clinical guidelines for the surgical management of gastric cancer should be based on robust evidence from well-designed trials. Being able to reliably compare and combine the outcomes of these trials is a key factor in this process.

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation in outcome reporting by surgical trials for gastric cancer and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in an international consensus study to develop a core outcome set in this field.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature searches (Evidence Based Medicine, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and a review of study protocols of randomised controlled trials, published between 1996 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

Therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorised into groups (outcome themes) and examined for definitions and measurement instruments.

RESULTS

Of 1919 abstracts screened, 32 trials (9073 participants) were identified. A total of 749 outcomes were reported of which 96 (13%) were accompanied by an attempted definition. No single outcome was reported by all trials. 'Adverse events' was the most frequently reported 'outcome theme' in which 240 unique terms were described. 12 trials (38%) classified complications according to severity, with 5 (16%) using a formal classification system (Clavien-Dindo or Accordion scale). Of 27 trials which described 'short-term' mortality, 15 (47%) used one of five different definitions. 6 out of the 32 trials (19%) described 'patient-reported outcomes'.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials is inconsistent. A consensus approach to develop a minimum set of well-defined, standardised outcomes to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer is needed. This should consider the views of all key stakeholders, including patients.

Optimal management of resected gastric cancer

Although advances in medical treatment for gastric cancer (GC) have been made, surgery remains the mainstay of cure for patients with localized disease. Improvement in surgical modalities leads to increased chance of cure for resected patients, but a non-negligible number of patients eventually relapse. On this basis, it has been hypothesized that the addition of complementary systemic or local treatments (such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy) could help in improving patients' survival by reducing the risk of recurrence. Several studies have tried to identify the best approach in localized GC: some of them have assessed the role of perioperative chemotherapy [CT] with different drug combinations, while others have focused on the benefit obtained by addition of radiotherapy, whose role is still under investigation. In particular, the role of chemoradiotherapy, both in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, is still uncertain. In the last few years, several clinicopathological and molecular factors have been investigated and identified as potential prognostic markers in GC. Many of these factors could have influenced the outcome of patients receiving combined treatments in the abovementioned studies. Patients have not been generally distinguished by the site of disease (esophageal, gastric and junctional cancers) and surgical approach, making data difficult to be interpreted. The purpose of this review was to shed light on these highly controversial topics.

Modified vs. standard D2 lymphadenectomy in distal subtotal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer patients under 70 years of age

The present study was conducted to investigate the prognosis and survival of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who underwent distal subtotal gastrectomy with modified D2 (D1+) and D2 lymphadenectomy, under 70 years of age. The five-year overall survival rates of 390 patients were compared between those receiving D1+ and D2 lymphadenectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify factors that correlated with prognosis and lymph node metastasis. Tumor size (P=0.039), pT stage (P=0.011), pN stage (P<0.001), and lymphadenectomy (P=0.004) were identified as independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, tumor size (P=0.022), pT stage (P=0.012), and lymphadenectomy (P=0.028) were proven as independent factors predicting lymph node metastasis. In conclusion, cancers of larger size, higher pT stage, and with D1+ lymphadenectomy had a higher risk of lymph node metastasis. Standard D2 lymphadenectomy removes sufficient lymph nodes to improve staging accuracy and survival. Therefore, D2 lymphanectomy is recommended in distal subtotal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer, especially for cancers of larger size and higher pT stage.

Splenectomy is an independent risk factor for poorer perioperative outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: an analysis of 936 procedures

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the impact of splenectomy on peri-operative outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). We report the largest series to date which addresses this topic.

METHODS

Nine hundred and thirty six consecutive patients underwent CRS/HIPEC from 1996 to 2016 at a high-volume institution in Sydney, Australia. Of these, 418 (45%) underwent splenectomy. Peri-operative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. The association of splenectomy with 19 peri-operative outcomes was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 1.8%. Patients undergoing splenectomy had a higher disease burden (peritoneal cancer index ≥17) (71% vs. 22%, P<0.001) and underwent a longer operation (≥9 hours) (73% vs. 34%, P<0.001). Even after accounting for confounding factors, splenectomy was independently associated with an increased risk of grade III/IV morbidity [relative risk (RR), 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29-2.91; P=0.01], infective complications (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.09-2.44; P=0.018), pancreatic leak (RR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.81-14.89, P=0.002) and intra-abdominal collection (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.84, P=0.004). It was also an independent risk factor for long hospital stay (≥28 days) (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.25-3.11; P=0.003). Splenectomy was not associated with in-hospital mortality (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.32-9.32, P=0.556).

CONCLUSIONS

Splenectomy is an independent risk factor for poorer peri-operative outcomes. Minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent splenic injury through careful dissection and routine vaccination can improve outcomes.

Comparison of the current AJCC-TNM numeric-based with a new anatomical location-based lymph node staging system for gastric cancer: A western experience

BACKGROUND

In gastric cancer, the current AJCC numeric-based lymph node staging does not provide information on the anatomical extent of the disease and lymphadenectomy. A new anatomical location-based node staging, proposed by Choi, has shown better prognostic performance, thus soliciting Western world validation.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from 284 gastric cancers undergoing radical surgery at the Second University of Naples from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed. The lymph nodes were reclassified into three groups (lesser and greater curvature, and extraperigastric nodes); presence of any metastatic lymph node in a given group was considered positive, prompting a new N and TNM stage classification. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves for censored survival data and bootstrap methods were used to compare the capability of the two models to predict tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

More than one third of node positive patients were reclassified into different N and TNM stages by the new system. Compared to the current staging system, the new classification significantly correlated with tumor recurrence rates and displayed improved indices of prognostic performance, such as the Bayesian information criterion and the Harrell C-index. Higher values at survival ROC analysis demonstrated a significantly better stratification of patients by the new system, mostly in the early phase of the follow-up, with a worse prognosis in more advanced new N stages, despite the same current N stage.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the anatomical location-based classification of lymph node metastasis may be an important tool for gastric cancer prognosis and should be considered for future revision of the TNM staging system.

Lymphadenectomy with Optimum of 29 Lymph Nodes Retrieved Associated with Improved Survival in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A 25,000-Patient International Database Study

BACKGROUND

Gastric adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease with frequent lymph node (LN) metastases for which lymphadenectomy results in a survival benefit. In the US, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend D2 lymphadenectomy or a minimum of 15 LNs retrieved. However, retrieval of only 15 LNs is considered by most international guidelines as inadequate. We sought to evaluate the survival benefits associated with a more complete lymphadenectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

An international database was constructed by combining gastric cancer cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database (n = 13,932) and the Yonsei University Gastric Cancer database (n = 11,358) (total n = 25,289). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed along with Joinpoint analysis to obtain the optimal number of LNs to retrieve based on survival. Prognostic significance of number of nodes retrieved was then confirmed with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Analysis for both mean and median survival yielded 29 LNs removed as the Joinpoint. This was confirmed with multivariate analysis, where 15 retrieved LNs cutoff fell out of the model and 29 retrieved LNs remained intact, with a hazard ratio of 0.799 (95% CI 0.759 to 0.842; p < 0.001). Stage-stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis for a cutoff point of 29 LNs also demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Joinpoint analysis has allowed for the creation of a model demonstrating the point at which additional dissection would not provide additional benefit. This large international dataset analysis demonstrates that the maximal survival advantage is seen by performing a lymphadenectomy with a minimum of 29 LNs retrieved.

Role of frailty and nutritional status in predicting complications following total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a prospective study

PURPOSE

This study was performed to determine the association of frailty and nutritional status with postoperative complications after total gastrectomy (TG) with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TG with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer between August 2014 and February 2016 were enrolled. Frailty was evaluated by sarcopenia which was diagnosed by a combination of third lumbar vertebra muscle index (L3 MI), handgrip strength, and 6-m usual gait speed. Nutritional status was evaluated by the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS 2002) score. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluating the risk factors for postoperative complications were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were analyzed, and 27.2 % developed complications within 30 days of surgery. One patient died within 30 days of the operation. In the univariate analyses, NRS 2002 score ≥3 (OR = 2.468, P = 0.012), sarcopenia (OR = 2.764, P = 0.008), and tumor located at the cardia (OR = 2.072, P = 0.046) were associated with the postoperative complications. Multivariable analysis revealed that sarcopenia (OR = 3.084, P = 0.005) and tumor located at the cardia (OR = 2.347, P = 0.026) were independent predictors of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a significant relationship between postoperative complications and geriatric frailty using sarcopenia in patients with gastric cancer after TG with D2 lymphadenectomy. Frailty should be integrated into preoperative risk assessment and may have implications in preoperative decisionmaking.

The Role of No. 10 Lymphadenectomy for Advanced Proximal Gastric Cancer Patients Without Metastasis to No. 4sa and No. 4sb Lymph Nodes

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus in the impact of No. 10 lymph node dissection (LND) for advanced proximal gastric cancer (APGC) and the status of negative No. 4sa and No. 4sb lymph nodes (No. 4s LNs) is reportedly associated with no metastasis to No. 10 LN. We aimed to evaluate the role of No. 10 LND in APGC patients with negative No. 4s LNs and the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative pathologic examination.

METHODS

We analyzed data on 727 patients with APGC who had undergone D2 lymphadenectomy with No. 10 LND (n = 380) or without No. 10 LND (n = 347) between January 2005 and December 2010. Additionally, from January to July 2014, we prospectively enrolled 48 patients with APGC and examined their No. 4s LNs intraoperatively.

RESULTS

The negative predictive efficacy of No. 4s LN status for no metastasis to No. 10 LN was 98.09 %. Operation time, blood loss, time to first solid diet, hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate differed significantly between patients with negative No. 4s LNs who underwent No. 10 LND (n = 260) and those who did not undergo No. 10 LND (n = 243). Differences between the two groups in 5-year overall and disease-free survival were not statistically significant. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of intraoperative pathological examination of LNs were 93.42, 96.56, and 95.86 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The No. 10 lymphadenectomy may not be recommended in patients with APGC who are found by intraoperative pathological examination to have negative No. 4s LNs.

Is Extended Lymphadenectomy Needed for Elderly Patients With Gastric Adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Extensive surgery is associated with greater mortality for elderly patients. For gastric adenocarcinoma (GA), it is unclear whether the benefit of an extended lymphadenectomy in this population outweighs the associated risks. This study aimed to determine the impact of lymphadenectomy on postoperative outcomes and survival for the elderly.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of lymphadenectomy on postoperative outcomes and survival for elderly.

METHODS

From a cohort of 19 centers, patients who underwent resection of GA with curative intent between 1997 and 2010 were included in this study. Lymphadenectomy was defined according to the total number of lymph nodes in the surgical specimen (limited, <15; intermediate, 15-25; extended, >25). Postoperative outcomes and survival were compared between elderly (≥75 years) and younger patients and regarding the extent of lymphadenectomy for the elderly.

RESULTS

Of 1348 patients, 386 were elderly. The elderly presented with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score (ASA 3-4: 45 vs. 16.5 %; p < 0.001) as well as greater postoperative morbidity (45 vs. 37 %; p = 0.009) and mortality (8 vs. 2.5 %; p < 0.001) despite less aggressive treatment including less neoadjuvant chemotherapy (5 vs. 20 %; p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (7 vs. 44 %; p < 0.001), fewer total gastrectomies (41.5 vs. 60 %; p < 0.001), and less extended lymphadenectomy (38 vs. 48.5 %; p < 0.001). Among the elderly patients, limited lymphadenectomy (n = 116), intermediate lymphadenectomy (n = 125), and extended lymphadenectomy (n = 145) were comparable with respect to tumor stage, perioperative treatment, morbidity, and mortality. For the elderly patients, overall survival (OS) was 30.8 months, and disease-specific survival (DSS) was 63.9 months. The extent of the lymphadenectomy did not have an impact on OS or DSS for the elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The expected benefit in terms of long-term survival did not justify an extended lymphadenectomy for elderly patients.

Worldwide practice in gastric cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the current status of gastric cancer surgery worldwide.

METHODS: An international cross-sectional survey on gastric cancer surgery was performed amongst international upper gastro-intestinal surgeons. All surgical members of the International Gastric Cancer Association were invited by e-mail to participate. An English web-based survey had to be filled in with regard to their surgical preferences. Questions asked included hospital volume, the use of neoadjuvant treatment, preferred surgical approach, extent of the lymphadenectomy and preferred anastomotic technique. The invitations were sent in September 2013 and the survey was closed in January 2014.

RESULTS: The corresponding specific response rate was 227/615 (37%). The majority of respondents: originated from Asia (54%), performed > 21 gastrectomies per year (79%) and used neoadjuvant chemotherapy (73%). An open surgical procedure was performed by the majority of surgeons for distal gastrectomy for advanced cancer (91%) and total gastrectomy for both early and advanced cancer (52% and 94%). A minimally invasive procedure was preferred for distal gastrectomy for early cancer (65%). In Asia surgeons preferred a minimally invasive procedure for total gastrectomy for early cancer also (63%). A D1+ lymphadenectomy was preferred in early gastric cancer (52% for distal, 54% for total gastrectomy) and a D2 lymphadenectomy was preferred in advanced gastric cancer (93% for distal, 92% for total gastrectomy)

CONCLUSION: Surgical preferences for gastric cancer surgery vary between surgeons worldwide. Although the majority of surgeons use neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive techniques are still not widely adapted.

The survival benefit and safety of No. 12a lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer patients with distal or total gastrectomy

There has still not been a consensus in aspects of survival benefit and safety on No.12a lymph nodes (LNs) dissection for gastric cancer patients. This study was aimed to evaluate this issue for patients with distal or total gastrectomy. Patients were retrospectively divided into 12aD+ group (with No.12a dissection) and 12aD-group (without No.12a dissection). Clinicopathologic characteristics, survival rate, morbidity and mortality were compared. There were 670 patients in 12aD+ group, while 567 in 12aD-group. The baselines between the two groups were comparable. The No.12a LNs metastasis ratio was 11.6% and higher in lower third tumor. The metastasis of No.5 LNs, N stage and M stage were correlated to metastasis of No.12a LNs. There was no difference in morbidity nor mortality between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival rates (5-y OS) were 59.6% and 55.1% in 12aD+ group and 12aD-group respectively (P = 0.075). The 5-y OS of patients with negative and positive No.12a LNs were 62.3% and 24.1%. The survival of stage III patients with No.12a positive was better than that of stage IV patients. The 5-y OS were better in 12aD+ group for patients with ages more than 60, lower third tumor, distal gastrectomy, N3 status, or III stages compared with 12aD-group. No.12a lymphadenectomy was independently better prognostic factors for stage III patients. No.12a LNs metastasis should not be considered as distant metastasis. No.12a lymphadenectomy can be performed safely and should be indicated for potentially curable progressive stage tumors requiring distal gastrectomy and might be reserved in patients with stage I or II, or upper third tumor.

Feasibility of Total Gastrectomy with D2 Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer and Predictive Factors for Its Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after total gastrectomy (TG) with D2 lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TG with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer between December 2008 and December 2011 were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for the short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients were analyzed, and 22.3 % developed complications within 30 days of surgery. No patient died within 30 days, while 2.6 % died within 90 days of the operation. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥65 years and cardiopulmonary comorbidities were associated with morbidity, whereas hypoproteinemia and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage III were associated with the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The number of preoperative risk factors stratified the morbidity from 10.3 % in those without any risk factors to 40.5 % in patients with both risk factors. Similarly, 5-year survival rates decreased from 68.9 % (DFS) and 71.1 % (OS) in those without risk factors to 20.2 % (DFS) and 22.9 % (OS) in patients with both risk factors.

CONCLUSION

TG with D2 lymphadenectomy has acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Patient risk stratification may allow for more rational selection of patients and therapeutic strategies for gastric resection.

Clinical significance of lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer

Approximately thirty percent of patients with gastric cancer undergo an avoidable lymph node dissection with a higher rate of postoperative complication. Comparing the D1 and D2 dissections, it was found that there is a significant difference in morbidity, favoured D1 dissection without any difference in overall survival. Subgroup analysis of patients with T3 tumor shows a survival difference favoring D2 lymphadenectomy, and there is a better gastric cancer-related death and non-statistically significant improvement of survival for node-positive disease in patients with D2 dissection. However, the extended lymphadenectomy could improve stage-specific survival owing to the stage migration phenomenon. The deployment of centralization and application of national guidelines could improve the surgical outcomes. The Japanese and European guidelines enclose the D2 lymphadenectomy as the gold standard in R0 resection. In the individualized, stage-adapted gastric cancer surgery the Maruyama computer program (MCP) can estimate lymph node involvement preoperatively with high accuracy and in addition the Maruyama Index less than 5 has a better impact on survival, than D-level guided surgery. For these reasons, the preoperative application of MCP is recommended routinely, with an aim to perform “low Maruyama Index surgery”. The sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) may decrease the number of redundant lymphadenectomy intraoperatively with a high detection rate (93.7%) and an accuracy of 92%. More accurate stage-adapted surgery could be performed using the MCP and SNB in parallel fashion in gastric cancer.

Advanced gastric cancer: What we know and what we still have to learn

Gastric cancer is a common neoplastic disease and, more precisely, is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world, with differences amongst geographic areas. The definition of advanced gastric cancer is still debated. Different stadiating systems lead to slightly different stadiation of the disease, thus leading to variations between the single countries in the treatment and outcomes. In the present review all the possibilities of treatment for advanced gastric cancer have been analyzed. Surgery, the cornerstone of treatment for advanced gastric cancer, is analyzed first, followed by an investigation of the different forms and drugs of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. New frontiers in treatment suggest the growing consideration for intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapeutics and combination of traditional drugs with new ones. Moreover, the necessity to prevent the relapse of the disease leads to the consideration of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy earlier in the therapeutical algorithm.

Extent of lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach

BACKGROUND

The impact of lymphadenectomy extent on the survival of patients with primary resectable gastric carcinoma is debated.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on the impact of the three main types of progressively more extended lymph node dissection (that is, D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) on the clinical outcome of patients with primary resectable carcinoma of the stomach. The primary objective was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy extent on survival (overall survival [OS], disease specific survival [DSS] and disease free survival [DFS]). The secondary aim was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy on post-operative mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE until 2001, including references from relevant articles and conference proceedings. We also contacted known researchers in the field. For the updated review, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2001 to February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the three main types of lymph node dissection (i.e., D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) in patients with primary non-metastatic resectable carcinoma of the stomach.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. Hazard ratios (HR) and relative risks (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure differences in survival and mortality rates between trial arms, respectively. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity were investigated by means of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The same two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration and the quality of the overall evidence based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (enrolling 2515 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Three RCTs (all performed in Asian countries) compared D3 with D2 lymphadenectomy: data suggested no significant difference in OS between these two types of lymph node dissection (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), with no significant difference in postoperative mortality (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.73). Data for DFS were available only from one trial and for no trial were DSS data available. Five RCTs (n = 3 European; n = 2 Asian) compared D2 to D1 lymphadenectomy: OS (n = 5; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and DFS (n=3; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07) findings suggested no significant difference between these two types of lymph node dissection. In contrast, D2 lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly better DSS compared to D1 lymphadenectomy (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92), the quality of the body of evidence being moderate; however, D2 lymphadenectomy was also associated with a higher postoperative mortality rate (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.04).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

D2 lymphadenectomy can improve DSS in patients with resectable carcinoma of the stomach, although the increased incidence of postoperative mortality reduces its therapeutic benefit.

Lymphadenectomy extent and survival of patients with gastric carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of time-to-event data from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The extent of lymph node dissection in patients with resectable non-metastatic primary carcinoma of the stomach is still a controversial matter of debate, with special regard to its effect on survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the three main types of lymphadenectomy (D1, D2, and D3) for gastric cancer. Hazard ratio (HR) was considered the effect measure for both overall (OS), disease-specific (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The quality of the available evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs enrolling 2515 patients were eligible. The meta-analysis of four RCTs (n=1599) showed a significant impact of D2 versus D1 lymphadenectomy on DSS (summary HR=0.807, CI: 0.705-0.924, P=0.002), the corresponding number-to-treat being equal to ten. This effect remained clinically valuable even after adjustment for postoperative mortality. However, the quality of evidence was graded as moderate due to inconsistency issues. When OS and DFS were considered, the meta-analysis of respectively five (n=1653) and three RCTs (n=1332) found no significant difference between D2 and D1 lymph node dissection (summary HR=0.911, CI: 0.708-1.172, P=0.471, and summary HR=0.946, CI: 0.840-1.066, P=0.366, respectively). However, at subgroup analysis D2 type resulted superior to D1 type lymphadenectomy in terms of OS considering the two RCTs carried out in Eastern countries (summary HR=0.627, CI: 0.396-0.994, P=0.047). As regards the D3 vs D2 comparison, the meta-analysis of the three available RCTs (n=862) showed no significant impact of more extended lymphadenectomy on OS (summary HR=0.990, CI: 0.814-1.205, P=0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the superiority of D2 versus D1 lymphadenectomy in terms of survival benefit. However, this advantage is mainly limited to DSS, the level of evidence is moderate, and the interaction with other factors affecting patient survival (such as complementary medical therapy) remains to be elucidated.