Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer Compared With Open Gastrectomy

Long-Term Outcomes of Open Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for T4a Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer (GC) has been applied more frequently worldwide but is still controversial for patients with serosal invasion (T4a). This study compared short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal radical gastrectomy (LDG) with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for T4a GC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 472 patients with T4a gastric adenocarcinoma in the lower or middle third of the stomach: 231 underwent LDG and 241 underwent ODG between 2013 and 2020. Short-term outcomes included operative characteristics and complications. Long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

The PSM strategy resulted in 294 patients (147 in each group). The LDG group had a significantly longer operating time (mean: 200 vs 190 min, p = 0.001) but reduced blood loss (mean: 50 vs 100 ml, p = 0.001). The LDG group had a higher rate of any postoperative complication (23.1% vs 12.2%, p = 0.021) but most were classified as grades I-II according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Grade III-V complications were similar between groups. Five-year OS was 69% versus 60% (p = 0.109) and 5-year DFS was 58% vs 53% (p = 0.3) in LDG and ODG groups, respectively. For tumor size < 5 cm, LDG was better in reduction of blood loss, postoperative hospital length of stay, and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LDG is feasible and safe for patients with T4a GC and is comparable to ODG regarding short- and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, LDG can be a favorable option for T4a GC smaller than 5 cm.

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis from a single institution

BACKGROUND

/Objective: Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer is described as a treatment option in general practice. However, the oncological efficacy and technical safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in locally advanced gastric cancer are controversial, and clinical trials are ongoing. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term and surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy procedures in locally advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 134 patients who underwent subtotal D2 gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in our hospital between January 2011 and December 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcome, postoperative recovery, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared between those who underwent laparoscopic and open gastrectomies.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries. Less surgical time (250.8 vs. 347.6 min in laparoscopic vs. open surgery, respectively; P < 0.05) and lower blood loss (83.7 vs. 333 mL in laparoscopic vs. open surgery, respectively; P < 0.05) were noted in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery than in those who underwent open gastrectomy. The time of starting oral intake was earlier and the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Surgical morbidity and mortality rates, as well as disease-free survival and overall survival rates, did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is feasible and safe for locally advanced gastric cancer. Based on the perioperative results and short-term outcomes, laparoscopic gastrectomy is non-inferior to open gastrectomy.

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.

Comparison of estimated treatment effects between randomized controlled trials, case-matched, and cohort studies on laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In actual surgical research, case-matched studies are frequently conducted as an alternative to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, it is still unclear what differences there are between RCTs and case-matched studies in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and clarifying them is a very important clinical issue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate estimated treatment effects between RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies regarding laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases for studies that compared LDG versus open distal gastrectomy for AGC published from the inception of the databases until July 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.3 software program from the Cochrane Collaboration, and six short-term outcomes and three long-term outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 13698 patients were included. There was no difference in estimated treatment effects between RCTs and case-matched studies for all outcomes except for the number of retrieved lymph nodes and postoperative complications. In terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and recurrence, observational studies tended to overestimate the treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

The estimated treatment effects of LDG for AGC in the case-matched study were almost the same as in the RCTs. However, to assess the true magnitude of the treatment effect, the design and actual implementation of the analysis must be critically evaluated.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety Analysis of Apatinib Combined with Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective

To study the safety of apatinib combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric carcinoma (GCA).

Methods

74 patients with advanced GCA treated in the oncology department of Weifang People's Hospital (January 2019–January 2020) were enrolled in this study and equally split into study group (SG) and reference group (RG) according to the odd and even admission numbers. RG underwent chemotherapy alone, while SG received apatinib combined with chemotherapy. The clinical indicators of serum matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), serum interleukin-2 receptor (SIL-2R), and immune cell level were detected in the two groups before and after treatment to analyze the therapeutic effect of different treatment methods on patients with advanced gastric carcinoma.

Results

No obvious differences in gender ratio, average age, average BMI, pathological staging, pathological types, organ metastasis types, and residence were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The short-term follow-up results showed that the disease control rate (DCR) in SG was markedly higher compared with RG (P < 0.05). The MMP-9 and SIL-2R levels in both groups after treatment decreased (P < 0.05), and the levels in SG after treatment were notably lower compared with RG (P < 0.001). Compared with RG, CD3⁺, CD4⁺, and CD4⁺/CD8⁺ levels in SG after treatment were notably higher (P < 0.001), while the CD8⁺ level was notably lower (P < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (MPFS) and overall survival (OS) in SG were markedly higher compared with RG (P < 0.001). The GQOLI-74 scores in both groups after treatment increased (P < 0.001), and the GQOLI-74 score in SG after treatment was markedly higher compared with RG (P < 0.001). The total incidence of adverse reactions was lower in SG than in RG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Apatinib combined with chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone in effectively improving treatment outcomes in patients with advanced GCA.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction for Siewert type II-III adenocarcinomas of esophago-gastric junction: a retrospective observational study of short-term outcomes

Background

Currently, the surgical approach to adenocarcinomas of esophago-gastric junction (AEG) remains controversial. Function-preserving gastric surgeries are becoming more popular, with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis being one of the most important for AEG. Meanwhile, with the increasing use of laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer, the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis for Siewert type II-III AEG need to be further clarified.

Methods

Data of patients with Siewert type II/III AEG was collected at our center from October 2010 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. 61 patients underwent open proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis (OPG-DT group) and 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis (LAPG-DT group). The clinical features, surgery, and short-term outcomes of patients in these 2 groups were collected to assess the safety and feasibility of LAPG-DT.

Results

A total of 113 patients were analyzed, there were 98 males and 15 females. No death during the operation. The differences in the number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus time to first eating, postoperative hospital stay, Additional analgesics were not statistically significant between two groups. Although the operative duration of LAPG-DT group was significantly longer than that of the OPG-DT group [(217±61) vs. (161±14) min, P=0.000), while less blood loss and less stress in LAPG-DT group. Early and late postoperative complications were similar between two groups.

Conclusions

Although laparoscopic-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double-tract anastomosis requires long operative time, it is associated with less bleeding and milder stress. Therefore, it is a safe and feasible surgical method.

Distribution of pathogenic bacteria and risk factors of nosocomial infection after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been the preferred method of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and nosocomial infection is one of the common postoperative complications, which seriously affects the postoperative recovery of patients. At present, there are many reports on infection in laparoscopic surgery in China, but few studies focus on the clinical characteristics of overall nosocomial infection. In this study, we analyzed the distribution of pathogenic bacteria and risk factors of nosocomial infection in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at our hospital to provide an objective basis for clinical diagnosis, treatment, and nursing.

AIM

To investigate the distribution of pathogenic bacteria and risk factors of nosocomial infection after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy in a tertiary hospital.

METHODS

A total of 175 patients admitted to Yiwu Central Hospital of Zhejiang Province for radical gastrectomy of gastric cancer from October 2016 to October 2019 were selected as the study subjects, all of whom underwent laparoscopic surgery. General information of all patients, such as gender, age, pathological type, gastric cancer stage, preoperative hospital stay, time of laparoscopic treatment, invasive operation, history of diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, and other indicators, as well as the occurrence of nosocomial infection, was carefully recorded.

RESULTS

Among the 175 patients with gastric cancer, 20 (11.43%) developed nosocomial infection. There were 11 cases of pulmonary infection (6.29%), 6 cases of abdominal infection (3.43%), 2 cases of incision infection (1.14%), and 1 case of urinary tract infection (0.57%). A total of 24 strains of pathogenic bacteria were isolated and cultured from 20 patients with nosocomial infection, among which 15 (62.5%) were Gram-negative and 9 (37.5%) were Gram-positive. Univariate analysis showed that age, tumor stage, operation time, diabetes history, and smoking history were factors significantly influencing postoperative nosocomial infection (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in gender, pathological type, length of hospital stay before surgery, intraoperative blood loss, or history of alcohol consumption. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that age of 70 years or above, tumor stage Ⅲ or above, operation time of 3 h, or history of diabetes and smoking were independent risk factors for postoperative nosocomial infection (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Age, tumor stage, operation time, diabetes history, and smoking history are independent risk factors for nosocomial infection in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. When these risk factors are present, active measures should be taken to prevent nosocomial infection.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about the effects of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival within the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

Studies published from January 1994 to February 2020 that compare LDG and ODG for AGC were identified. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The selection of high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies, MINORS). The short- and long-term outcomes of both procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised of 8 RCTs and 22 NRCTs involving 16,029 patients (7864 LDGs, 8165 ODGs). The recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates for LDG and ODG were comparable. LDG was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.79; P < 0.00001), lower estimated volume of blood loss (WMD -102.21 mL; P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.96 days; P < 0.0001), shorter time to first flatus (WMD -0.54 day; P = 0.0007) and shorter time to first liquid diet (WMD -0.66 day; P = 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved, mortality, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, and time to ambulation were similar. However, LDG was associated with a longer surgical time (WMD 33.57 min; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with AGC when performed by experienced surgeons at high-volume specialized centers.

Is the 5-port approach necessary in laparoscopic gastrectomy? Comparison of surgical effects of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port surgery, in which fewer ports are used than those in conventional laparoscopic surgery, is becoming increasingly popular for various procedures. However, the application of reduced-port surgery to the gastrectomy field is still underdeveloped. The aim of this study was to use meta-analysis to address the potentially important advantages of this surgical technique.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed (through October 2019) to identify studies that compared reduced-port (RPLG) and conventional laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (CLG) in patients with gastric carcinoma. The endpoints were postoperative time, length of in-hospital stay, blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative complications, time to first flatus, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, which included 1743 patients (907 RPLG and 836 CLG), were ultimately included in this analysis. Better aesthetic results: were obtained with RPLG (risk ratio 1.578; 95%CI, 1.377-1.808; P = .000), although length of in-hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.106; 95% CI, -0.222 to 0.010; P = .074), time to first flatus (SMD -0.006; 95%CI, -0.123 to 0.110; P = .913), and perioperative complications (risk ratio 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .478) were equivalent. However, operative time was significantly longer (SMD 0.301; 95%CI, 0.194-0.409; P = .00), blood loss was greater (SMD -0.31; 95%CI, -0.415 to 0.205; P = .000), and fewer lymph nodes were harvested (SMD 0.255; 95%CI, 0.142-0.369; P = .000) in the RPLG group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that RPLG is as safe as the CLG approach and offers better aesthetic results for patients with gastric carcinoma. However, basing on current evidence, RPLG was not an efficacious surgical alternative to CLG, as operative time was significantly longer, blood loss was greater, and fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the RPLG group. Additional high-powered controlled randomized trials are required, to determine whether RPLG truly offers any advantages; these future studies should particularly focus on pain scores and aesthetic outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential advantages of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LG for Siewert type II/III AEG, compared with OG.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in various medical databases up to December 30, 2018. Seven non-randomized controlled trials comparing LG and OG for Siewert type II/III AEG were included. Outcomes evaluated including operation time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs), post-operation complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to ambulation, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Seven studies of 1915 patients were included for meta-analysis. The estimated blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 77.49, 95%CI - 111.84 to - 43.15; P < 0.00001] was significantly less and the postoperative hospital stay (WMD = - 1.98, 95%CI - 2.14 to - 1.83; P < 0.00001) was significantly shorter in the LG group than in the OG group, while the operation time, number of retrieved LNs, time to first flatus, and time to ambulation showed no significant difference between LG and OG groups. The overall postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95%CI 0.60-1.02; P = 0.07] in LG group were less than those in OG group, although the difference was not significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LG can achieve short-term surgical outcomes comparable to OG, with respect to safety and efficiency in treatment of Siewert type II/III AEG.