The impact and optimal indication of non-curative gastric resection for stage IV advanced gastric cancer diagnosed during surgery: 10 years of experience at a single institute

A pragmatic approach improves the clinical management of stage IV gastric cancer: Comparison between the Meta-Gastro results and the GIRCG's retrospective series

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer developed a prospective database about stage IV gastric cancer, to evaluate how a pragmatic attitude impacts the management of these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected data about metastatic gastric cancer patients thanks to cooperation between radiologists, oncologists and surgeons and we analyzed survival and prognostic factors, comparing the results to those obtained in our retrospective study.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and eighty-three patients were enrolled from 2018 to September 2022. We observed a higher percentage of laparoscopic exploration with peritoneal lavage in the prospective cohort. In the registry only 3.6 % of patients was submitted to surgery without associated chemotherapy, while in the retrospective population 44.3 % of patients were operated on without any chemotherapy. At univariate and multivariate analyses, the different metastatic sites did not show any survival differences among each other (OS 20.0 vs 16.10 vs 16.7 months for lymphnodal, peritoneal and hepatic metastases, respectively), while the number of metastatic sites and the type of treatment showed a statistical significance (OS 16,7 vs 13,0 vs 4,5 months for 1, 2 and 3 different metastatic sites respectively, p < 0.001; 24,2 vs 12,0 vs 2,5 months for surgery with/without chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone and best supportive treatment respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data highlight that the different metastatic sites did not show different survivals, but survival is worse in case of multiple localization. In patients where a curative resection can be achieved, acceptable survival rates are possible. A better diagnostic workup and a more accurate staging impact favorably upon survival.

Development and validation of a CT radiomics and clinical feature model to predict omental metastases for locally advanced gastric cancer

""We employed radiomics and clinical features to develop and validate a preoperative prediction model to estimate the omental metastases status of locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). A total of 460 patients (training cohort, n = 250; test cohort, n = 106; validation cohort, n = 104) with LAGC who were confirmed T3/T4 stage by postoperative pathology were continuously collected retrospectively, including clinical data and preoperative arterial phase computed tomography images (APCT). Dedicated radiomics prototype software was used to segment the lesions and extract features from the preoperative APCT images. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to select the extracted radiomics features, and a radiomics score model was constructed. Finally, a prediction model of omental metastases status and a nomogram were constructed combining the radiomics scores and selected clinical features. An area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to validate the capability of the prediction model and nomogram in the training cohort. Calibration curves and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the prediction model and nomogram. The prediction model was internally validated by the test cohort. In addition, 104 patients from another hospital's clinical and imaging data were gathered for external validation. In the training cohort, the combined prediction (CP) model (AUC 0.871, 95% CI 0.798-0.945) of the radiomics scores combined with the clinical features, compared with clinical features prediction (CFP) model (AUC 0.795, 95% CI 0.710-0.879) and radiomics scores prediction (RSP) model (AUC 0.805, 95% CI 0.730-0.879), had the better predictive ability. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the CP model showed that the prediction model did not deviate from the perfect fitting (p = 0.893). In the DCA, the clinical net benefit of the CP model was higher than that of the CFP model and RSP model. In the test and validation cohorts, the AUC values of the CP model were 0.836 (95% CI 0.726-0.945) and 0.779 (95% CI 0.634-0.923), respectively. The preoperative APCT-based clinical-radiomics nomogram showed good performance in predicting omental metastases status in LAGC, which may contribute to clinical decision-making.

Current status of conversion surgery for stage IV gastric cancer

Palliative chemotherapy with best supportive care is a mainstay for patients with gastric cancer (GC) and distant metastasis. However, with advances in GC chemotherapy, multimodal treatment, including perioperative chemotherapy plus conversion surgery, has attracted attention as a new strategy to improve the outcome of patients with stage IV disease. Conversion surgery is defined as surgical treatment aimed at R0 resection after a good response to induction chemotherapy for tumors originally considered unresectable or marginally resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons. Various biological characteristics differ, depending on each metastatic condition in stage IV GC. The main metastatic pathways of GC can be divided into three categories: lymphatic, hematogenous, and peritoneal. In each category, considerable historical data on conversion surgery have demonstrated the benefits of individualized approaches. However, owing to the diversity of these conditions, a common definition, including the choice of induction chemotherapy, optimal timing of resection, and eligibility for conversion surgery, has not been established among surgical oncologists. Thus, we explore the current and future treatment options by reviewing the literature on this controversial topic comprehensively.

A Nomogram Based on Clinicopathologic Features and Preoperative Hematology Parameters to Predict Occult Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background

In patients with gastric cancer (GC), peritoneal metastasis is an indication of the end stage and often indicates a poor outcome. The diagnosis of peritoneal metastasis, especially occult peritoneal metastasis (OPM), remains a challenge for surgeons. This study was designed to explore the relationship between OPM and clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative hematological parameters in patients with GC and to develop a nomogram to predict the probability of OPM before surgery.

Methods

A total of 672 patients with GC from our center were included, including 583 OPM-negative and 89 OPM-positive patients. These patients were divided into training and validation groups based on when they received treatment. OPM was diagnosed during surgery in patients without any signs of metastasis through imaging examination. Predictive factors were screened by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression of all 18 characteristics. The nomogram of OPM was constructed based on these filtered variables. The discriminative and calibration performance of the model were simultaneously evaluated.

Results

A total of six variables, including tumor size, degree of differentiation, depth of invasion, Glasgow prognosis score, and plasma levels of CA125 and fibrinogen, were selected for integration into the final predictive nomogram. The area under curve (AUC) of the nomogram with six factors was 0.906 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.872-0.941) and 0.889 (95% CI: 0.795-0.984) in the training and validation groups, respectively. Calibration plots of the nomogram in the two sets revealed a good consistency between predicted and actual probabilities. Decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram had a positive net benefit among all threshold probabilities between 0% and 82%. This nomogram was superior to models incorporating only clinicopathologic or hematologic features.

Conclusion

Both clinicopathological and preoperative hematological parameters are significantly associated with OPM. The nomogram constructed with six factors could be used to calculate the probability of OPM and identify the high-risk population in GC. This may be helpful for early detection of OPM in patients with GC.

Analysis of risk factors of stage IV gastric cancer from the SEER database

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world. By the time the patients are diagnosed with stage IV gastric cancer, many patients already have distant metastases. There is no unified systemic treatment plan in existence. The use of gastrectomy is ambiguous in patients with stage IV gastric cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the beneficial outcome of gastrectomy in patients with stage IV gastric cancer.

METHODS

Clinical information of patients with gastric cancer from 2000 to 2010 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were extracted and analysed. The risk factors for stage IV gastric cancer were also analysed.

RESULTS

We observed that the median survival time for patients after surgery was greater than that for patients not treated surgically. The five-year survival rate for chemotherapy patients was higher than that of non-chemotherapeutic patients. Patients who receive both chemotherapy and surgery could achieve a more significant survival benefit. The risks following gastrectomy (partial, subtotal, hemi-) were lower than those of other surgical procedures, which provided guidance on the choice of surgical method. The numbers of regional lymph node metastasis were found to be related to prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stage IV gastric cancer, gastrectomy (partial, subtotal or hemi) should be selected when surgery is necessary. The number of regional lymph node metastasis could be considered as a prognostic factor for patients with stage IV gastric cancer and lymph node dissection could reduce the risk of patients undergoing surgery.

Treatment strategies for metastatic gastric cancer: chemotherapy, palliative surgery or radiotherapy?

Aim: This study explored whether chemotherapy combined with palliative surgery and/or radiotherapy is a possible treatment for metastatic gastric cancer. Materials & methods: Patients were divided into groups according to treatments. COX models were used to explore prognostic factors. Kaplan-Meier models and log-rank tests were used to analyze outcomes. Outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching. Results: Chemotherapy combined with gastrectomy or metastasectomy prolongs the survival time compared with chemotherapy alone (p < 0.05). Chemotherapy combined with gastrectomy plus metastasectomy and/or radiation therapy also prolongs the survival time (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Chemotherapy combined with gastrectomy could be a more effective treatment for metastatic gastric cancer. Chemotherapy combined with gastrectomy plus metastasectomy and/or radiation therapy could also be a promising treatment.

Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

For patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer, induction chemotherapy could down-stage primary tumors, resulting in conversion surgery becoming possible. However, the feasibility and therapeutic benefit of conversion surgery remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and investigate the efficacy of conversion surgery followed by chemotherapy for unresectable AGC.

Outcomes of Non-curative Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP)

BACKGROUND

The surgical care of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (GC) remains debated. Despite level 1 evidence showing lack of survival benefit, surgery may be used for symptoms prevention or palliation. This study examined short-term postoperative outcomes of non-curative gastrectomy performed for metastatic GC.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry, including gastrectomies for GC (2007-2015). The primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity. Multivariable analysis examined the association between metastatic status and outcomes adjusted for relevant demographic and clinical covariates.

RESULTS

Of 5341 patients, 377 (7.1%) had metastases. Major morbidity was more common with metastases (29.4 vs. 19.6%; p < 0.001), driven by a higher rate of respiratory events. Prolonged hospital length of stay (beyond the 75th percentile: 11 days) was more likely with metastases than with no metastases (41.9 vs. 28.3%; p < 0.001). After adjustment, metastatic status was associated with major morbidity (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90). This association remained for respiratory events (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33), 30-day mortality (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.38-3.48), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.31-2.07).

CONCLUSION

Non-curative gastrectomy for metastatic GC was associated with significant major morbidity and mortality as well as a prolonged hospital stay, longer than expected for gastrectomy for non-metastatic GC. These data can inform decision making regarding non-curative gastrectomy, helping surgeons to weigh the risks of morbidity against the potential benefits and alternative therapeutic options.

Staging and surgical approaches in gastric cancer: a clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Resection is the cornerstone of cure for gastric adenocarcinoma; however, several aspects of surgical intervention remain controversial or are suboptimally applied at a population level, including staging, extent of lymphadenectomy (lnd), minimum number of lymph nodes that have to be assessed, gross resection margins, use of minimally invasive surgery, and relationship of surgical volumes with patient outcomes and resection in stage iv gastric cancer.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in databases including medline (up to 10 June 2016), embase (up to week 24 of 2016), the Cochrane Library and various other practice guideline sites and guideline developer Web sites. A practice guideline was developed.

RESULTS

One guideline, seven systematic reviews, and forty-eight primary studies were included in the evidence base for this guidance document. Seven recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients should be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting, and computed tomography (ct) imaging of chest and abdomen should always be performed when staging patients. Diagnostic laparoscopy is useful in the determination of M1 disease not visible on ct images. A D2 lnd is preferred for curative-intent resection of gastric cancer. At least 16 lymph nodes should be assessed for adequate staging of curative-resected gastric cancer. Gastric cancer surgery should aim to achieve an R0 resection margin. In the metastatic setting, surgery should be considered only for palliation of symptoms. Patients should be referred to higher-volume centres and those that have adequate support to manage potential complications. Laparoscopic resections should be performed to the same standards as those for open resections, by surgeons who are experienced in both advanced laparoscopic surgery and gastric cancer management.