Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I and II reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) has been increasingly used for the treatment of gastric cancer, however, its comparative safety and efficacy against the laparoscopic approach (LDG), remains unclear, especially when accounting the reconstruction method as a confounder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of RDG vs LDG In patIents with gastric cancer, undergoing Billroth I and II reconstruction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, up to October 22nd, 2024. The primary outcomes analyzed were the blood loss, operative duration, and the number of harvested lymph nodes and the secondary outcomes included overall complications, time to oral intake, duration of hospitalization and time to first flatus. Random-effects models were used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. P values were also calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. Five studies were included, involving 811 patients (RDG: n = 289, LDG: n = 522). RDG was associated with a significantly longer operative duration compared to LDG (WMD = 34.14 min, 95%CI 10.92 to 57.35, P = 0.004, I2 = 91%). RDG patients initiated oral intake earlier (WMD = -0.20 days, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.01, P = 0.03, I2 = 45%). RDG resulted in shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1.48 days, 95%CI -2.91 to -0.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 86%). RDG patients had a faster return to bowel function (time to first flatus) (WMD = -0.33 days, 95%CI -0.50 to -0.15, P = 0.00003, I2 = 57%). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding blood loss between RDG and LDG (WMD = -3.88 mL, 95%CI -21.63 to 13.87, P = 0.67, I2 = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates (OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.03, P = 0.06, I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed regarding the number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD = -0.49, 95%CI -3.02 to 2.04, P = 0.70, I2 = 24%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings of operative duration and time to first flatus. RDG with BI/ BII requires longer operative duration, but it associated with faster recovery compared to LDG. No differences were observed between RDG and LDG with regards to overall complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and blood loss, showing that RDG is as safe and oncological equivalent to LDG. Future studies particularly, multi-center randomized clinical trials, should have a longer follow up period and examine the type of reconstruction separately. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024605895.

Effect of Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Gastrectomy on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Gastric Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) has been shown to improve short-term outcomes compared with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with early (EGC) and locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). The impact of MIDG on patient survival remains debated. This study aimed to compare the effect of MIDG versus ODG on long-term survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized clinical trial (RCTs) individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis with restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) estimation. Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Primary outcomes were 5-year overall (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and cancer specific survival (CSS). RMSTD and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. The certainty of evidence was categorized with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Overall, ten RCTs (5297 patients) were included; 50.4% of patients underwent MIDG. At 60-months follow-up, the OS and DFS estimates for ODG versus MIDG were 0.41 months (95% CI - 0.17, 0.99; high level of certainty) and 0.42 months (95% CI - 0.38, 1.23; high level of certainty). CSS was specified in two RCTs, hence quantitative analysis was not practicable. The 60-month OS and DFS estimates for LAGC (five studies) were 0.32 months (95% CI - 0.80, 1.44; high level of certainty) and 0.31 months (95% CI - 2.02, 1.33; high level of certainty), respectively. The 36-month DFS appraisal for stage III patients (three studies) was - 0.41 months (95% CI - 26.1, 38.2; low level of certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found high-certainty evidence that MIDG and ODG demonstrate similar 5-year OS and DFS in patients with both EGC and LAGC.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) has been shown to be associated with improved short-term outcomes compared to open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). The impact of MIDG on long-term patient survival remains debated. Aim was to compare the MIDG vs. ODG effect on long-term survival.

METHODS

Systematic review and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Five-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included (2835 patients). Overall, 1421 (50.1%) patients underwent MIDG and 1414 (49.9%) ODG. The ages ranged from 48 to 70 years and 63.4% were males. The pooled 5-year OS (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.04; I2 = 0.0%) and 5-year DFS (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; I2 = 0.0%) were similar for MIDG vs. ODG. The TSA shows a cumulative z-curve without crossing the monitoring boundaries line (Z = 1.96), thus suggesting not conclusive 5-year OS and DFS results because the total information size was not sufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDG and ODG seem to have equivalent 5-year OS and DFS in patients with LAGC. However, the cumulative evidence derived from the TSA showed that the actual information size is not sufficient to provide conclusive data.

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Lap-Assisted, Totally Laparoscopic, and Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Total gastrectomy (TG) is the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer (GC). While open TG (OTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard, alternative techniques such as lap-assisted TG (LATG), totally laparoscopic TG (TLTG), and robotic TG (RTG) have been reported with promising outcomes. The present analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of different techniques for TG comprehensively in the setting of GC.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were overall complications (OC), severe postoperative complications (SPCs), and anastomotic leak (AL). Pooled effect-size measures included risk ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies (44,689 patients) were included. Overall, 52.4% underwent OTG, 6.5% LATG, 39.2% TLTG, and 1.9% RTG. Both TLTG (RR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.73-0.92) and RTG (RR 0.75; 95% CrI 0.59-0.95) showed a reduced rate of postoperative OC compared to OTG. SPCs and AL RR were comparable across all techniques. Despite the longer operative time, LATG, TLTG, and RTG showed reduced intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus, ambulation, liquid diet resumption, and hospital stay compared to OTG.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches seem to be associated with improved OC and functional outcomes compared to OTG.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Laparoscopic, Laparoscopic-Assisted, and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Trials Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is debated. The aim of this study was to execute a comprehensive assessment of principal surgical treatments for resectable distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) network meta-analysis. Open (Op-DG), laparoscopic-assisted (LapAs-DG), totally laparoscopic (Lap-DG), and robotic distal gastrectomy (Rob-DG) were compared. Pooled effect-size measures were the risk ratio (RR), the weighted mean difference (WMD), and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (3823 patients) were included. Overall, 1012 (26.5%) underwent Lap-DG, 902 (23.6%) LapAs-DG, 1768 (46.2%) Op-DG, and 141 (3.7%) Rob-DG. Anastomotic leak, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3), and in-hospital mortality were comparable. No differences were observed for reoperation rate, pulmonary complications, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical-site infection, cardiovascular complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, and tumor-free resection margins. Compared to Op-DG, Lap-DG and LapAs-DG showed a significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss with a trend toward shorter time to first flatus and reduced length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

LapAs-DG, Lap-DG, and Rob-DG performed in referral centers by dedicated surgeons have comparable short-term outcomes to Op-DG for locally AGC.

Long-Term Impact of D2 Lymphadenectomy during Gastrectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Time Estimation

BACKGROUND

Debate exists concerning the impact of D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy on long-term oncological outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effect of D2 vs. D1 on survival were included. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size measures.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (1653 patients) were included. Overall, 805 (48.7%) underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. The RMSTD OS analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, D2 patients lived 1.8 months (95% CI -4.2, 0.7; p = 0.14) longer on average compared to D1 patients. Similarly, 60-month CSS (1.2 months, 95% CI -3.9, 5.7; p = 0.72) and DFS (0.8 months, 95% CI -1.7, 3.4; p = 0.53) tended to be improved for D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to D1, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with a clinical trend toward improved OS, CSS, and DFS at 60-month follow-up.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

How different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy performed by the same surgical team during the same period

Objective

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and robotic distal gastrectomy performed during the same period.

Methods

This study enrolled 46 cases of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and 67 cases of robotic distal gastrectomy that were performed by a single surgeon between April 2020 to October 2021. Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of these two groups were then compared. Moreover, the robotic distal gastrectomy group was further divided into two subgroups according to the learning curve. Finally, the baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of both subgroups were compared with the laparoscopic group, respectively.

Results

The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LDG group and RDG group were comparable. In contrast, the operation time in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than that in the early experience robotic group (191.3 ± 37.6 VS 225.1 ± 49, P=0.001). However, the operation time (191.3 ± 37.6 VS 185.3 ± 25.3, P=0.434) was comparable between the laparoscopic group and the late experience robotic group. Likewise, the bleeding volume was comparable between the laparoscopic and early experience robotic groups. However, bleeding volume was significantly lower in the late experience robotic group compared to that in the laparoscopic group (37.5 ± 18.8 VS 49.2 ± 29.0, P=0.049).

Conclusions

With surgeons stepping into the stable stage of the robotic learning curve, RDG showed a comparable operation time and lower volume of blood loss compared with LDG. Collectively, our study supports the application of robotic distal gastrectomy in patients diagnosed with gastric cancer.

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference.

PURPOSE

To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Reinforcement methods of duodenal stump after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A review

Duodenal stump fistula is a rare but dangerous complication of gastric cancer surgery. Reinforcement of the duodenal stump was suggested as a useful method to prevent the occurrence of duodenal stump fistula. Although laparoscopic surgery has been established as a safe procedure for gastric cancer, it is acknowledged that the application of duodenal stump reinforcement is a demanding process in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. This review aims to provide a concise description of the proposed reinforcement methods of duodenal stump after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer by summarizing the relevant literature written in English. The thorough knowledge of these reinforcement techniques may help surgeons to find the most suitable reinforcement method of duodenal stump for patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) in obese patients with GC. To investigate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RG and LG in obese GC patients, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity matched scores and retrospective studies to compare the perioperative parameters, oncologic findings, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Methods

This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register to identify eligible propensity matched scores and retrospective studies conducted and published before December 2022. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified 1 propensity score match study and 5 randomized control trials of RG and LG, enrolling a total of 718 patients (197 and 521 patients received RG and LG, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications, bleeding, or lymph node dissection. Of note, RG had a longer procedure time (P = 0.03), earlier oral intake (P = 0.0010), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0002), and shorter time to defecation (P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis concluded that patients in the RG group had shorter hospital stays, earlier postoperative feeding, and earlier postoperative ventilation; however, no differences were found in blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, or overall complications. RG is an effective, safe, and promising treatment for obese patients with GC, compensating for the shortcomings of laparoscopy and allowing for less trauma and faster recovery.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022298967.

Laparoscopic vs. open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who exclusively underwent distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

Data in published meta-analyses that included different gastrectomy types and mixed tumor stages prevented an accurate comparison between LDG and ODG. Recently, several RCTs that compared LDG with ODG included AGC patients specifically for distal gastrectomy, with D2 lymphadenectomy being reported and updated with the long-term outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs for comparing LDG with ODG for advanced distal gastric cancer. Short-term surgical outcomes and mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival were compared. The Cochrane tool and GRADE approach were used for evaluating the quality of evidence (Prospero registration ID: CRD42022301155).

Results

Five RCTs consisting of a total of 2,746 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in terms of intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, severe postoperative complications, R0 resection, D2 lymphadenectomy, recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival, intraoperative blood transfusion, time to first liquid diet, time to first ambulation, distal margin, reoperation, mortality, or readmission between LDG and ODG. Operative times were significantly longer for LDG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 49.2 min, p < 0.05], whereas harvested lymph nodes, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, and proximal margin were lower for LDG (WMD -1.3, p < 0.05; WMD -33.6 mL, p < 0.05; WMD -0.7 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.2 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.4 mm, p < 0.05). Intra-abdominal fluid collection and bleeding were found to be less after LDG. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Conclusions

Data from five RCTs suggest that LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC has similar short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival to ODG when performed by experienced surgeons in hospitals contending with high patient volumes. It can be concluded that RCTs should highlight the potential advantages of LDG for AGC.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, registration number CRD42022301155.

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy Compared to Open Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be a safe and feasible method in gastric cancer (GC) treatment. However, most studies are in Eastern cohorts and there is great interest in knowing whether the method can be used routinely, especially in the West.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of D2-gastrectomy by RG versus open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

Single-institution, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial performed between 2015 and 2020. GC patients were randomized (1:1 allocation) to surgical treatment by RG or OG. Da Vinci Si platform was used.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

gastric adenocarcinoma, stage cT2-4 cN0-1, potentially curative surgery, age 18-80 years, and ECOG performance status 0-1.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

emergency surgery and previous gastric or major abdominal surgery. Primary endpoint was short-term surgical outcomes. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02292914).

RESULTS

Of 65 randomized patients, 5 were excluded (3 palliatives, 1 obstruction and emergency surgery, and 1 for material shortage). Consequently, 31 and 29 patients were included for final analysis in the OG and RG groups, respectively. No differences were observed between groups regarding age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, ASA, and frequency of total gastrectomy. RG had similar mean number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.805), longer surgical time (p < 0.001), and less bleeding (p < 0.001) compared to OG. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmissions in 30 days were equivalent between OG and RG.

CONCLUSIONS

RG reduces operative bleeding by more than 50%. The short-term outcomes were non-inferior to OG, although surgical time was longer in RG.

Surgical considerations and outcomes of minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer resection

Despite high mortality rates from gastric cancer, surgical management remains critical for curative potential. Optimal outcomes of gastric cancer resection depend on a multitude of variables, including the extent of resection, scope of lymphadenectomy, method of reconstruction, and potential for a minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, compared with open gastrectomy, has been analyzed in numerous randomized control trials. Generally, those trials demonstrated statistically similar postoperative complication rates, mortality, and oncologic outcomes between the two approaches. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy requires longer operative times, significant improvements in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and return of bowel function have been noted in patients who undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy. These short-term benefits, along with equivalent oncologic results, have influenced national guidelines in both Eastern and Western countries to recommend laparoscopy, especially for early stage disease. Although robotic gastrectomy has not been as widely validated in effective trials, studies have reported equivalent oncologic outcomes and similar or improved postoperative complication and recovery rates after robotic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. Comparing the two minimally invasive gastrectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with improved estimated blood loss, incidence of pancreatic sequela, and lymph node harvests in some studies, whereas laparoscopy resulted in lower operative times and hospital costs. Ultimately, when applying outcomes from the literature to clinical patient care decisions, it is imperative to recognize these studies' range of inclusion criteria, delineating between patients originating from Eastern or Western countries, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the volume of surgeon experience, and the extent of gastrectomy, among others.

Perspectives of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer

Gastrectomy is the main treatment option for gastric cancer patients. Laparoscopic approach has become popular as an alternative to open method during the last decades, and clinical trials have revealed safety and feasibility in the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy. The aim of this review is to summarize the results of prospective clinical trials and propose future perspectives for laparoscopic gastrectomy.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score‑matched analysis of 1164 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies on surgical outcomes after robotic surgery are increasing; however, long-term oncological results of studies comparing robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still limited. This study aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of RADG and LADG for the treatment of AGC.

METHODS

A total of 1164 consecutive AGC patients undergoing RADG or LADG were enrolled between January 2015 and October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. The perioperative and oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups after PSM. RADG group represented a longer operative time (205.2 ± 43.1 vs 185.3 ± 42.8 min, P < 0.001), less operative blood loss (139.3 ± 97.8 vs 167.3 ± 134.2 ml, P < 0.001), greater retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) number (31.4 ± 12.1 vs 29.4 ± 12.3, P = 0.015), more retrieved LNs in the supra-pancreatic areas (13.4 ± 5.0 vs 11.4 ± 5.1, P < 0.001), and higher medical costs (13,608 ± 4326 vs 10,925 ± US $3925, P < 0.001) than LADG group. The overall complication rate was 13.7% in the RADG group and 16.6% in the LADG group, respectively; the difference was not significantly different (P = 0.242). In the subgroup analysis, the benefits of RADG were more evident in high BMI patients. Moreover, the 3-year overall survival (75.5% vs 73.1%, P = 0.471) and 3-year disease-free survival (72.9% vs 71.4%, P = 0.763) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADG appears to be a safe and feasible procedure and could serve as an alternative treatment for AGC in experienced centers.

Techniques for reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for cancer: updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The choice of the best reconstruction technique after distal gastrectomy (DG) remains controversial and still not defined. The purpose was to perform a comprehensive evaluation within the major type of intestinal reconstruction after DG for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare Billroth I (BI), Billroth II (BII), Billroth II Braun (BII Braun), Roux-en-Y (RY), and Uncut Roux-en-Y (URY). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures while 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (1456 patients) were included. Of these, 448 (33.7%) underwent BI, 220 (15.1%) BII, 114 BII Braun (7.8%), 533 (36.6%) RY, and 141 URY (9.6%). No significant differences were found among treatments for 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and overall complications. At 12-month follow-up, RY was associated with a significantly reduced risk of remnant gastritis compared to BI (RR=0.56; 95% Crl 0.35-0.76) and BII reconstruction (RR=0.47; 95% Crl 0.22-0.97). Similarly, despite the lack of statistical significance, RY seems associated with a trend toward reduced endoscopically proven esophagitis compared to BI (RR=0.58; 95% Crl 0.24-1.51) and bile reflux compared to BI (RR=0.48; 95% Crl 0.17-1.41), BII (RR=0.74; 95% Crl 0.20-2.81), and BII Braun (RR=0.65; 95% Crl 0.30-1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis shows that there are five main options for intestinal anastomosis after DG. All techniques seem equally safe with comparable anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, overall morbidity, and short-term outcomes. In the short-term follow-up (12 months), RY seems associated with a reduced risk of remnant gastritis and a trend toward a reduced risk of bile reflux and esophagitis.

Outcomes of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the short-term outcomes and prognosis after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in elderly patients aged ≥ 80 years in a multicenter retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 440 patients who underwent curative LTG for gastric cancer at six institutions between January 2004 and December 2018. Patients were categorized into an elderly patient group (EG; age ≥ 80 years) and non-elderly patient group (non-EG; age < 80 years). Patients were matched using the following propensity score covariates: sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, extent of lymph node dissection, and Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma stage. Short-term outcomes and prognoses were compared.

RESULTS

We identified 37 propensity score-matched pairs. The median operative time was significantly shorter, and postoperative stay was longer in the EG. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the rates of all complications were comparable. The median follow-up period of the EG and non-EG was 11.5 (1-106.4) months and 35.7 (1-110.0) months, respectively; there were significant differences in 5-year overall survival between the two groups (EG, 58.5% vs. non-EG, 91.5%; P = 0.031). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year disease-specific survival (EG, 62.1% vs. non-EG, 91.5%; P = 0.068) or 5-year disease-free survival (EG, 52.9% vs. non-EG, 60.8%; P = 0.132).

CONCLUSIONS

LTG seems to be safe and feasible in elderly patients. LTG had a limited effect on morbidity, disease recurrence, and survival in elderly patients. Therefore, age should not prevent elderly patients from benefitting from LTG.

Risk Assessment and Preventive Treatment for Peritoneal Recurrence Following Radical Resection for Gastric Cancer

As the most common recurrence pattern after radical gastric cancer resection, peritoneal recurrence is a major cause of mortality, which affects the prognosis of patients to a very large extent. Peritoneal status and risk of peritoneal recurrence can be evaluated by peritoneal lavage cytology, photodynamic diagnosis, imaging examination, and pathologic analysis. Presently, there is no standard approach for preventing peritoneal recurrence after radical surgery; furthermore, controversies exist regarding the effects of some preventive methods. Among the preventive methods, there are high expectations about the potential of preoperative therapy, surgical skill improvement, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and postoperative treatment to reduce the incidence of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy. This study aimed to analyze the results of previous studies on the risk assessment and preventive methods of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy in recent years. We hope to provide references for better approach to clinical diagnosis and treatment strategies for peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy.

Feasibility of totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes in obese patients with gastric cancer undergoing totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) to clarify its feasibility in this population.

METHODS

We examined 136 consecutive patients who underwent TLTG for gastric cancer (GC) between 2013 and 2018. A total of 45 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² were defined as the obese group (obese and overweight patients by the WHO classification), and 91 patients with a BMI < 25 kg/m² were defined as the non-obese group. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared, and the correlation between obesity and postoperative complications was examined in patients who underwent TLTG.

RESULTS

Although the operation time (min) was significantly longer in the obese group than in the non-obese group (329 vs 307, p = 0.002), there were no significant differences in the total volume of blood loss (mL) (118 vs 60, p = 0.059) or the rate of conversion to laparotomy between the two groups (2 vs 2, p = 0.466). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (16% vs 19%, p = 0.653). In the multivariate analysis, obesity was not identified as a risk factor for postoperative complications among patients who underwent TLTG. The rate of overall survival was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.512).

CONCLUSION

TLTG is feasible for obese Japanese patients with GC. To validate the results of the present study, it is necessary to conduct a prospective study of a large population of patients with GC.

LncRNA SNHG3 Promotes Gastric Cancer Cells Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion by Targeting miR-326

The function and possible mechanism of lncRNA Small Nucleolar RNA Host Gene 3 (SNHG3) in GC have not been fully studied. The aim of our study was to investigate the role of SNHG3 in the proliferation, migration, and invasion of GC cell lines. The expressions of SNHG3, miR-326, and TWIST in GC9811-P GC cell lines were detected by RT-qPCR. Western blotting was performed to detect the protein levels of TWIST and EMT-related genes. Luciferase reporter gene analysis and RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) analysis confirmed the interaction between lncRNA SNHG3, miR-326, and TWIST. CCK-8 and Transwell assays were performed to detect cell proliferation, invasion, and migration abilities. The results showed that lncRNA SNHG3 and TWIST were highly expressed in GC cell lines, while miR-326 was expressed to a low degree. Moreover, lncRNA SNHG3 knockdown or miR-326 overexpression significantly inhibited cell proliferation, migration, and invasion of GC cell lines. In addition, TWIST overexpression can reverse the inhibition of lncRNA SNHG3 knockdown or miR-326 overexpression on cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. In conclusion, lncRNA SNHG3 may promote GC progression through the miR-326/TWIST axis, which may provide a new diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for GC.