Prognostic value of surgical margin status in gastric cancer patients

Prognostic Relevance of the Proximal Resection Margin Distance in Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The risk for recurrence in patients with distal gastric cancer can be reduced by surgical radicality. However, dispute exists about the value of the proposed minimum proximal margin distance (PMD). Here, we assess the prognostic value of the safety distance between the proximal resection margin and the tumor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-center cohort study of patients undergoing distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (2001-2021). Cohorts were defined by adequacy of the PMD according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines (≥ 5 cm for intestinal and ≥ 8 cm for diffuse Laurén's subtypes). Overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were assessed by log-rank and multivariable Cox-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 176 patients, 70 (39.8%) had a sufficient PMD. An adequate PMD was associated with cancer of the intestinal subtype (67% vs. 45%, p = 0.010). Estimated 5-year survival was 63% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51-78] and 62% (95% CI 53-73) for adequate and inadequate PMD, respectively. Overall, an adequate PMD was not prognostic for OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48-1.38) in the multivariable analysis. However, in patients with diffuse subtype, an adequate PMD was associated with improved oncological outcomes (median OS not reached versus 131 months, p = 0.038, median TTP not reached versus 88.0 months, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Patients with diffuse gastric cancer are at greater risk to undergo resection with an inadequate PMD, which in those patients is associated with worse oncological outcomes. For the intestinal subtype, there was no prognostic association with PMD, indicating that a distal gastrectomy with partial preservation of the gastric function may also be feasible in the setting where an extensive PMD is not achievable.

Intraoperative assessment of the curative potential to predict survival after gastric cancer resection: A national cohort study

BACKGROUND

The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of tumor resection following gastrectomy adds new information that could help clinicians and patients by predicting survival.

METHODS

All patients in Sweden undergoing gastric cancer resection between 2006 and 2018 were grouped according to a prospectively registered variable; the surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of surgery: curative, borderline curative, or palliative. Factors affecting group allocation were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression, while survival was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 2341 patients undergoing gastric cancer resection, 1547 (71%) were deemed curative, 340 (15%) borderline curative, and 314 (14%) palliative (140 missing assessments). Advanced stage increased the risk of borderline curative resection (Stage III, odds ratio (OR) = 6.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.92-9.31), as did emergency surgery OR = 3.31 (1.74-6.31) and blood loss >500 mL; OR = 1.63 (1.06-2.49). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion both decreased the risk of borderline curative resection, OR = 0.58 (0.39-0.87) and 0.57 (0.40-0.80), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the surgeon's assessment independently predicted worse survival for borderline curative (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.29-1.83) and palliative resections (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.45-2.19), compared to curative resections. The sensitivity of the surgeon's assessment of long-term survival was 96.7%. The PPV was 50.7% and the NPV was 92.1%.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of gastric cancer surgery may independently aid survival prediction and is analogous to prognostication by pathologic Staging. Advanced disease, emergency surgery, and a high intraoperative blood loss, increases the risk of a borderline curative or palliative resection. Conversely, neoadjuvant treatment and MDT discussion reduce the risk of borderline curative or palliative resection.

Adequate gross resection margin length ensuring pathologically complete resection in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

A positive resection margin (RM) is associated with poor survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC). However, the adequate RM length to avoid a positive RM remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to examine the RM length required to avoid a positive RM in gastrectomy for GC.

Methods

This systematic review involved all relevant articles identified in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 2023. The incidence of a positive RM related to the RM length and the possible incidence of a positive RM estimated from the discrepancy between the gross and pathological RM length were evaluated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to quantify study quality.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 8983 patients were analyzed. Investigation of the incidence of a positive RM in relation to the RM length showed that a proximal RM length of 6 cm guaranteed a negative RM in gastrectomy. Analyses of the possible incidence of a positive RM revealed that a negative RM would be guaranteed if the proximal RM length was 6 cm in distal gastrectomy, if the esophageal resection length was 2 cm in total gastrectomy for GC without esophageal invasion and 2.5 cm in total or proximal gastrectomy for GC with esophageal invasion or esophagogastric junction cancer, and if the distal RM length was 4 cm in proximal gastrectomy for early GC.

Conclusions

The adequate RM lengths to ensure a pathologically negative RM in each type of gastrectomy for GC were herein suggested.

Textbook outcome contributes to long-term prognosis in older adults with gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite quality measurement of short-term outcomes for evaluating surgical procedures. We investigated whether TO can be used to predict outcomes after curative gastric cancer (GC) surgery in older adults.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 492 consecutive patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for GC from 2005 to 2017. Among these, 141 advanced-age patients were eligible. The patients were divided into two groups: those who achieved TO (a-TO group) and those who failed to achieve TO (f-TO group). In accordance with previous reports, TO consisted of eight metrics. We evaluated the association between TO and long-term survival.

RESULTS

TO was achieved 73 (52%) patients. The patients in the f-TO group had a significantly higher body mass index (P = 0.01), longer surgery time (P = 0.03), and more blood loss (P = 0.001). The metric with the lowest achievement rate was "no postoperative severe complication." The patients in the f-TO group had significantly shorter overall survival than those in the a-TO group (P = 0.03). Multivariable Cox regression analyses of overall survival revealed that an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification of 3 (hazard ratio [HR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-5.98; P < 0.0001) and f-TO (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.09-3.39; P = 0.02) were significantly associated with poor overall survival.

CONCLUSION

TO can be used to predict outcomes after curative GC surgery in patients of advanced age.

Surgery Matters: Progress in Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma has progressed significantly in the past few decades. A major milestone was the establishment of multimodal therapies for locally advanced tumours. Improvements in the technique of endoscopic resection have supplanted surgery in the early stages of many cases of gastric cancer. In cases in which an endoscopic resection is not possible, surgical limited resection procedures for the early stages of carcinoma are an equal alternative to gastrectomy in the field of oncology. Proximal gastrectomy is extensively discussed in this context. Whether proximal gastrectomy leads to a better quality of life and better nutritional well-being than total gastrectomy depends on the reconstruction chosen. The outcome cannot be conclusively assessed at present. For locally advanced stages, total or subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is now the global standard. A subtotal gastrectomy requires sufficiently long tumour-free proximal resection margins. Recent data indicate that proximal margins of at least 3 cm for tumours with an expansive growth pattern and at least 5 cm for those with an infiltrative growth pattern are sufficient. The most frequently performed reconstruction worldwide following gastrectomy is the Roux-en-Y reconstruction. However, there is evidence that pouch reconstruction is superior in terms of quality of life and nutritional well-being. Oncological gastric surgery is increasingly being performed laparoscopically. The safety and oncological equivalency were first demonstrated for early carcinomas and then for locally advanced tumours, by cohort studies and RCTs. Some studies suggest that laparoscopic procedures may be advantageous in early postoperative recovery. Robotic gastrectomy is also increasing in use. Preliminary results suggest that robotic gastrectomy may have added value in lymphadenectomy and in the early postoperative course. However, further studies are needed to substantiate these results. There is an ongoing debate about the best treatment option for gastric cancer with oligometastatic disease. Preliminary results indicate that certain patient groups could benefit from resection of the primary tumour and metastases following chemotherapy. However, the exact conditions in which patients may benefit have yet to be confirmed by ongoing trials.

Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Might Be Recommended to Patients With Positive Margin After Gastrectomy: A 20-Year Retrospective Analysis in a Single Center

Background

Margin positivity after gastric cancer resection is associated with poorer outcomes. However, the prognostic factors and the choice of postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with positive margin (PM) after gastrectomy are still being debated.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted for patients with PM after gastrectomy from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) from 1998 to 2018. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

A total of 449 patients were included in the study, including 192 (42.8%) in the proximal PM group (PPM), 205 (45.7%) in the distal PM group (DPM), and 52 (11.6%) in the bilateral PM group (BPM). The 3- and 5-year OS rates for the PM patients investigated were 47.5% and 39.3%, respectively, and the 3- and 5-year RFS rates were 60.0% and 53.6%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis proved total gastrectomy (hazard ratio (HR): 1.783, 95%CI: 1.133–2.805, p = 0.012), pT4 (HR: 5.264, 95%CI: 1.493–18.565, p = 0.01), pN2 (HR: 2.263, 95%CI: 1.164–4.397, p = 0.016), pN3 (HR: 2.327, 95%CI: 1.233–4.393, p = 0.009), and combined resection (HR: 1.952, 95%CI: 1.256–3.034, p = 0.003) to be independent risk factors of OS, and pT3 (HR: 9.257, 95%CI: 1.152–74.386, p = 0.036) and pT4 (HR: 11.361, 95%CI: 1.469–87.847, p = 0.020) to be independent risk factors for RFS. Adjuvant chemotherapy prolonged OS in the PPM group (p = 0.032) and prolonged RFS in the PPM group (p < 0.001) and the DPM group (p = 0.035) compared with surgery alone.

Conclusions

Advanced pathologic stage was associated with poor prognosis, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy might be recommended in PM patients after gastrectomy. Still, further prospective trials are warranted to verify and support our conclusions.

Prediction of long-term survival after gastrectomy using random survival forests

BACKGROUND

No well validated and contemporaneous tools for personalized prognostication of gastric adenocarcinoma exist. This study aimed to derive and validate a prognostic model for overall survival after surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma using a large national dataset.

METHODS

National audit data from England and Wales were used to identify patients who underwent a potentially curative gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the stomach. A total of 2931 patients were included and 29 clinical and pathological variables were considered for their impact on survival. A non-linear random survival forest methodology was then trained and validated internally using bootstrapping with calibration and discrimination (time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve (tAUC)) assessed.

RESULTS

The median survival of the cohort was 69 months, with a 5-year survival of 53.2 per cent. Ten variables were found to influence survival significantly and were included in the final model, with the most important being lymph node positivity, pT stage and achieving an R0 resection. Patient characteristics including ASA grade and age were also influential. On validation the model achieved excellent performance with a 5-year tAUC of 0.80 (95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 0.82) and good agreement between observed and predicted survival probabilities. A wide spread of predictions for 3-year (14.8-98.3 (i.q.r. 43.2-84.4) per cent) and 5-year (9.4-96.1 (i.q.r. 31.7-73.8) per cent) survival were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A prognostic model for survival after a potentially curative resection for gastric adenocarcinoma was derived and exhibited excellent discrimination and calibration of predictions.

Impact of Surgical Margin Status on Survival in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.

METHODS

The present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).

CONCLUSION

R1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.

Influence of positive margins on tumour recurrence and overall survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Incidence of positive surgical margins after curative gastrectomy ranges from 1% to 20%. It has been suggested that positive surgical margin is an adverse prognosis factor, with a higher local recurrence and worse overall survival (OS). However, the management of these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

A total of 267 patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent between January 2010 and December 2018 in our centre were enrolled in this study. Post-operative histological analysis revealed positive resection margins in 18 patients (8%). Clinicopathological features and outcome of patients undergoing gastrectomy with negative and positive margins were compared.

RESULTS

Patients with positive margins were associated with higher American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, T stage, N stage, median number of positive nodes, diffuse Lauren type, whole stomach involved and poorly differentiated tumours. Local recurrence was described in 50% of cases with positive margins. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that the TNM stage was the only independent prognostic factor associated with recurrence. OS for positive margins at 1, 3 and 5 years was 75%, 57% and 26%, respectively. The median survival in patients with positive margins was 38.33 versus 81.17 months for R0 patients (p = 0.027). Multivariate analysis showed that age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.041, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.07, sex (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.22-3.30) and TNM stage (p < 0.001) were independent factors of OS.

CONCLUSION

Positive resection margin was an indication of advanced and more aggressive disease rather than an independent prognosis factor for OS or recurrence in gastric cancer.

Isolated brachioradialis metastasis of gastric adenocarcinoma after R0 resection

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with an incidence of 6.72 per 100,000 people. Thirty-two percent of gastric cancer patients will live 5 years after diagnosis. Single-site metastasis is noted in 26% of patients with gastric cancer, most commonly in the liver (48%), peritoneum (32%), lung (15%), and bone (12%). Here, a case is presented in which a single skeletal muscle metastasis appeared after appropriate resection and treatment.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old man underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a multivisceral en bloc R0 resection. Final pathology showed no evidence of lymph node metastasis with 31 negative lymph nodes. Four months postoperatively, the patient was found to have a rapidly growing biopsy-proven extremity soft tissue gastric metastasis within the brachioradialis muscle. He subsequently underwent metastasectomy and immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This case is a rare example of an isolated extremity metastasis of gastric adenocarcinoma in the setting of an R0 resection of the primary tumor and negative nodal disease on final pathology, suggestive of hematogenous spread. We review the biology, workup, and management of gastric cancer and highlight new advancements in the treatment of this aggressive cancer.

Intraoperative gastroscopy to determine proximal resection margin during totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with upper third gastric cancer

Background

In totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG), it is usually difficult to determine the proximal margin. Therefore, the present study evaluated the usefulness of intraoperative gastroscopy for direct marking of the tumor proximal margin during TLG for cancer in the upper third of the stomach.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 52 patients with gastric cancer who underwent TLG from January 2018 to May 2020. The proximal margin of tumors was determined by intraoperative gastroscopic methods.

Results

Patients were divided into short (1 cm) and long (2 cm) groups according to the distance to the proximal margin of the tumor. Participants consisted of 41 males and 11 females with a median age of 63.5 years. Tumors involving the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) occurred in 27 patients. Siewert type II and III tumors were present in 42 and 10 patients, respectively. The median operative time was 244 min. The long group had a statistically significant lower frequency of positive margin than the short group (0% vs. 17.4%, P=0.033). Total gastrectomy was performed in 35 patients, and 17 patients received proximal gastrectomy. No complications associated with the procedure occurred in any patient.

Conclusions

Intraoperative endoscopic views for tumor proximal localization can be used effectively during TLG for patients with upper third gastric cancer. Our results indicate that a distance of ≥2 cm from the proximal resection margin to the tumor was necessary to achieve a negative resection margin. In the future, this may be used as an alternative to frozen section diagnosis.

Impact of surgical margin status on the survival outcome after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Generally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I² statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165110.

FLOT Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy in the Treatment of Locally Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with advanced gastric cancer remains unsatisfactory, highlighting the need for improved therapeutic strategies. We analyzed 23 resectable advanced gastric cancer patients who received FLOT followed by laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to evaluate the efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma (stage cT3-4 and/or N + M0) underwent neoadjuvant FLOT therapy (four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles) at Shanghai East Hospital. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was scheduled 3-4 weeks after completion of the last cycle of preoperative chemotherapy. The type of surgical procedure was determined by the location and extent of the primary tumor.

RESULTS

23 patients were reviewed in the study. 20 patients (81.2%) received four courses of FOLT therapy, while 3 patients (18.8%) received three courses of treatment. There were 3 (13.0%) complete responses, 13 (56.5%) partial responses, 4 (26.1%) of stable disease, and 1 (4.3%) of progressive disease. The clinical efficacy response rate was 69.6%. The R0 resection rate was 91.3%. Only one patient exhibited grade III postoperative complications. The pathologic complete remission was 13%. The common grade 3/4 adverse events from chemotherapy were leucopenia (17.4%), neutropenia (30.4%), anemia (13%), anorexia (13%), and nausea (17.4%). Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients (26.1%). There was no treatment-related mortality or reoperation. The most reason for not completing chemotherapy was the patient's request.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that FLOT neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy, is effective and safe in advanced, resectable advanced gastric cancer.

Risk factors analysis and stratification for microscopically positive resection margin in gastric cancer patients

Background

Cancer cells are often found postoperatively at surgical resection margins (RM) in patients with gastric cancer because of submucosal infiltration or hesitation to secure adequate RM. This study was designed to evaluate risk factors for microscopic positive RM and to clarify which patients should undergo intraoperative frozen section diagnosis (IFSD).

Methods

Patients who underwent R0/1 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2018 in a single cancer center in Japan were studied. We divided the patients into a positive RM group and negative RM group according to the results of definitive histopathological examinations. We performed multivariate analysis to analyze risk factors for positive RM by and used the identified risk factors to risk stratify the patients.

Results

A total of 2757 patients were studied, including 49 (1.8%) in the positive RM group. The risk factors significantly associated with positive RM were remnant gastric cancer (odds ratio [OR] 4.7), esophageal invasion (OR 6.3), tumor size ≥80 mm (OR 3.9), and a histopathological diagnosis of undifferentiated type (OR 3.6), macroscopic type 4 (OR 3.7), or pT4 disease (OR 4.6). On risk stratification analysis, the incidence of positive RM was 0.1% without any risk factors, increasing to 0.4% with one risk factor, 3.1% with two risk factors, 5.3% with three risk factors, 21.3% with four risk factors, and 85.7% with five risk factors.

Conclusions

The risk of macroscopically positive RM increased in patients who have risk factors. IFSD should be performed in patients who have four or more risk factors.

Population-Based Study on Risk Factors for Tumor-Positive Resection Margins in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Background

Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to evaluate factors associated with a tumor-positive resection margin after gastrectomy and to evaluate the influence of hospital volume.

Methods

In this Dutch cohort study, patients with junctional or gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was incomplete tumor removal after the operation defined as the microscopic presence of tumor cells at the resection margin. The association of patient and disease characteristics with incomplete tumor removal was tested with multivariable regression analysis. The association of annual hospital volume with incomplete tumor removal was tested and adjusted for the patient- and disease characteristics.

Results

In total, 2799 patients were included. Incomplete tumor removal was seen in 265 (9.5%) patients. Factors associated with incomplete tumor removal were: tumor located in the entire stomach (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.38 [1.91–5.96] reference: gastroesophageal junction), cT3, cT4, cTx (1.75 [1.20–2.56], 2.63 [1.47–4.70], 1.60 [1.03–2.48], reference: cT0-2), pN+ (2.73 [1.96–3.80], reference: pN−), and diffuse and unknown histological subtype (3.15 [2.14–4.46] and 2.05 [1.34–3.13], reference: intestinal). Unknown differentiation grade was associated with complete tumor removal (0.50 [0.30–0.83], reference: poor/undifferentiated). Compared with a hospital volume of < 20 resections/year, 20–39, and > 39 resections were associated with lower probability for incomplete tumor removal (OR 0.56 [0.42–0.76] and 0.34 [0.18–0.64]).

Conclusions

Tumor location, cT, pN, histological subtype, and tumor differentiation are associated with incomplete tumor removal. The association of incomplete tumor removal with an annual hospital volume of < 20 resections may underline the need for further centralization of gastric cancer care in the Netherlands.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-07381-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Surgical Outcomes After Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the significant advantages of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has shown little benefit over laparoscopic gastrectomy. This study aimed to compare multi-dimensional aspects of surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data from 915 gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy by one surgeon between March 2009 and May 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative parameters were analyzed for short-term outcomes. Surgical success was defined as the absence of conversion to open surgery, major complications, readmission, positive resection margin, or fewer than 16 retrieved lymph nodes.

RESULTS

This study investigated 241 patients undergoing open gastrectomy, 511 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy, and 173 patients undergoing robotic gastrectomy. For each approach, the respective incidences were as follows: conversion to open surgery (not applicable, 0.4%, and 0%; p = 0.444), in-hospital major complications (5.8, 2.7, and 1.2%; p = 0.020), delayed complications requiring readmission (2.9, 2.0, and 1.2%; p = 0.453), positive resection margin (1.7, 0, and 0%; p = 0.003), and inadequate number of retrieved lymph nodes (0.4, 4.1, and 1.7%; p = 0.010). Compared with open and laparoscopic surgery, robotic gastrectomy had the highest surgical success rate (90, 90.8, and 96.0%). Learning-curve analysis of success using cumulative sum plots showed success with the robotic approach from the start. Multivariate analyses identified age, sex, and gastrectomy extent as significant independent parameters affecting surgical success. Surgical approach was not a contributing factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy exhibited different incidences and causes of surgical failure. Robotic gastrectomy produced the best surgical outcomes, although the approach method itself was not an independent factor for success.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate.

METHODS

Literature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG.

CONCLUSIONS

For AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.

A clinical prognostic scoring system for resectable gastric cancer to predict survival and benefit from paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is a standard procedure of curative resection for gastric cancer (GC). The aim of this study was to develop a simple and reliable prognostic scoring system for GC treated with D2 gastrectomy combined with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

A prognostic scoring system was established based on clinical and laboratory data from 579 patients with localized GC without distant metastasis treated with D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

From the multivariate model for overall survival (OS), five factors were selected for the scoring system: ≥50% metastatic lymph node rate, positive lymphovascular invasion, pathologic TNM Stage II or III, ≥5 ng/mL preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and <110 g/L preoperative hemoglobin. Two models were derived using different methods. Model A identified low- and high-risk patients for OS (P<0.001), while Model B differentiated low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients for OS (P<0.001). Stage III patients in the low-risk group had higher survival probabilities than Stage II patients. Both Model A (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.78) and Model B (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72–0.83) were better predictors compared with the pathologic TNM classification (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.59–0.71, P<0.001). Adjuvant paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based or triple chemotherapy showed significantly better outcomes in patients classified as high risk, but not in those with low and intermediate risk.

Conclusion

A clinical three-tier prognostic risk scoring system was established to predict OS of GC treated with D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. The potential advantage of this scoring system is that it can identify high-risk patients in Stage II or III who may benefit from paclitaxel- or oxaliplatin-based regimens. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results before they are applied clinically.