Is it time to abandon the 5-cm margin rule during resection of distal gastric adenocarcinoma? A multi-institution study of the U.S. Gastric Cancer Collaborative

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.

Prognostic effect of microscopically negative but close resection margin in gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Microscopically positive resection margin (RM) following curative surgery has been linked to disease recurrence in gastric cancer (GC), but the impact of microscopically negative but close RM (CRM) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic implications of a CRM of ≤0.5 cm in GC patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the institutional GC database identified 1958 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for pathologically proven GC between January 2011 and December 2015. The patients were categorized into CRM (RM ≤0.5 cm) and sufficient RM (SRM, RM >0.5 cm) groups. The impact of CRM on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed compared to the SRM group.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 1264 patients with early GC (EGC, 64.6%) and 694 with advanced GC (AGC, 35.4%). Forty-four patients (2.2%) had RM of ≤0.5 cm. CRM was associated with worse RFS in AGC (5-year RFS in the CRM vs. SRM groups; 41.6% vs. 68.7%, p = 0.011); however, the effect on OS was not significant (p = 0.159). Multivariate analysis revealed that CRM was an independent prognostic factor for RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.035, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.097-3.776). In AGC, the locoregional recurrence rate was significantly higher in the CRM group than in the SRM group (15.4% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

CRM of ≤0.5 cm was a significant prognostic factor for RFS in GC patients and was associated with a significant increase in locoregional recurrence in AGC.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Distal gastrectomy (DG) with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is routinely performed. In this meta-analysis, we present an updated overview of the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic DG (LDG) and robotic DG (RDG) to compare their safety and overall outcomes in patients undergoing DG. An extensive search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the establishment of the database to June 2023 for randomized clinical trials comparing RDG and LDG. The primary outcome was operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. We identified twenty studies, evaluating 5,447 patients (1,968 and 3,479 patients treated with RDG and LDG, respectively). We observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proximal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, major complications, anastomosis site leakage, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay. The RDG group had a longer operative time (P < 0.00001), lesser bleeding (P = 0.0001), longer distal resection margin (P = 0.02), earlier time to oral intake (P = 0.02), fewer overall complications (P = 0.004), and higher costs (P < 0.0001) than the LDG group. RDG is a promising approach for improving LDG owing to acceptable complications and the possibility of radical resection. Longer operative times and higher costs should not prevent researchers from exploring new applications of robotic surgery.

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.

Prognostic factors of poor postoperative outcomes in gastrectomies

Background

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is the third most common cause of cancer related death. Improving postoperative results by understanding risk factors which impact outcomes is important. The current study aimed to compare immediate perioperative outcomes following gastrectomy.

Methods

302 patients following gastric resections over a 10-year period (January 2009-January 2020) were identified in a database and retrospectively analysed. Epidemiological as well as perioperative data was analysed, and a univariate and multivariate analysis performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Results

In general, gastrectomies were mainly performed electively (total vs. subtotal 95% vs. 85%, p = 0.004). Patients having subtotal gastrectomy needed significantly more PRBC transfusions compared to total gastrectomy (p = 0.039). Most emergency surgeries were performed for benign diseases, such as ulcer perforations or bleeding and gastric ischaemia. Only emergency surgery was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (HR 2.68, 95% CI 1.32-5.05, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In-hospital mortality was comparable between total and subtotal gastrectomies. Only emergency interventions increased postoperative fatality risk.

A shorter distal resection margin is a surrogate marker of nodal metastasis and poor prognosis in distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Although a 3-5 cm surgical margin distance is recommended for advanced gastric cancer (GC) in Japanese guidelines, little is known about the clinical effects of the surgical margin, especially the distal resection margin (DM). This study aims to clarify the clinical significance of DM in GC.

METHODS

A total of 415 GC patients who underwent curative distal gastrectomy between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The DM significantly stratified recurrence-free survival (P = 0.002), and a DM < 30 mm was an independent factor of a poor prognosis (P = 0.023, hazard ratio: 1.91). Lymphatic recurrence occurred significantly more frequently in the DM < 30 mm group than in the DM ≥ 30 mm group (P = 0.019, 6.9% vs. 1.9%). Regarding the station No.6 lymph node metastases in advanced GC (DM < 30 mm vs. 30 mm ≤ DM ≤ 50 mm vs. DM > 50 mm), the number (P < 0.001, 1.42 ± 1.69 vs. 1.18 ± 1.80 vs. 0.18 ± 0.64), the positive rate (P < 0.001, 59.0% vs. 46.7% vs. 11.3%) and therapeutic value index (43.3 vs. 14.5 vs. 8.0) were significantly higher in the DM < 30 mm group. By subdivision using the DM distance of 30 mm, more segmented prognostic stratifications were possible (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A DM of less than 30 mm could be a surrogate marker of poor RFS, especially increasing nodal recurrence. More intensive treatment strategies, including lymphadenectomy and chemotherapy, are needed for patients with this condition.

Clinical strategies for securing negative proximal margin in early gastric cancer

Securing an appropriate proximal resection margin (PRM) is crucial for oncological safety in treating gastric cancer. This study investigated the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with incomplete PRM length of <2 cm in early gastric cancer. Clinicopathological data of 1,493 patients who underwent subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into the PRM length of <2 cm and ≥2 cm groups based on pathological results. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated factors for incomplete PRM length. Factors related to patients with a relative PRM positive were also analyzed. The proportion of patients with a PRM length of <2 cm was 17.9% (267/1,493). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that age <50, preoperative endoscopic size of ≥3 cm, size discrepancy of ≥2 cm, and midbody tumor with a lesser curvature significantly contributed to the PRM length of <2 cm. Twenty-four patients had a relative PRM positive (24/1493, 1.6%). An incomplete PRM was the only risk factor for a positive relative PRM. Surgical treatment for early gastric cancer requires an accurate preoperative endoscopic tumor size and location evaluation. A more aggressive resection is recommended for patients with age <50, preoperative endoscopic size of ≥3 cm, size discrepancy of ≥2 cm, and midbody tumor with a lesser curvature.

Impact of positive microscopic resection margins (R1) after gastrectomy in diffuse-type gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Diffuse-type gastric cancer (DTGC) is associated with poor outcome. Surgical resection margin status (R) is an important prognostic factor, but its exact impact on DTGC patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of microscopically positive margins (R1) after gastrectomy on survival and tumour recurrence in DTGC patients.

METHODS

All consecutive DTGC patients from two tertiary centers who underwent curative oncologic gastrectomy from 2005 to 2018 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) for R0 versus R1 patients. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence patterns as well as the overall survival benefit of chemotherapy in this DTGC patient cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 108 patients were analysed, 88 with R0 and 20 with R1 resection. Patients with negative lymph nodes and negative margins (pN0R0) had the best OS (median 102 months, 95% CI 1-207), whereas pN + R0 patients had better median OS than pN + R1 patients (36 months 95% CI 13-59, versus 7 months, 95% CI 1-13, p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for DFS. Perioperative chemotherapy offered a median OS of 46 months (95% CI 24-68) versus 9 months (95% CI 1-25) after upfront surgery (p = 0.022). R1 patients presented more often early recurrence (< 12 postoperative months, 30% vs 8%, p = 0.002), however, no differences were observed in recurrence location.

CONCLUSION

DTGC patients with microscopically positive margins (R1) presented poorer OS and DFS, and early tumour recurrence in the present series. R0 resection should be obtained whenever possible, even if other adverse biological features are present.

Oncological impact of unexpected horizontal tumor spread in gastric cancer that requires total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer often exhibits discrepancies between the gross and pathological tumor boundaries, and the degree of discrepancy may be a tumor characteristic. However, whether these discrepancies influence oncological outcomes remains unclear.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2005 to 2018 were collected. A new parameter, ΔPM, which corresponds to the length of the discrepancy between the gross and pathological proximal boundaries, was calculated and the patients were divided into two groups: patients with long ΔPM and those with short ΔPM. Oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A length of 8 mm was determined as the cutoff value for long or short ΔPM. Tumor size, growth pattern, pathological type, depth, and esophageal invasion were associated with ΔPM > 8 mm. Overall survival of the ΔPM > 8 mm group was significantly worse than that of the ΔPM ≤ 8 mm group (5-year overall survival: 58% vs 78%; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that ΔPM > 8 mm was an independent risk factor for poor survival and peritoneal metastasis. The likelihood ratio test revealed a significant interaction between pT status and ΔPM (p = 0.0007). Circumferential involvement and gross esophageal invasion were poorer survival factors in the ΔPM > 8 mm group.

CONCLUSIONS

ΔPM > 8 mm is related to several clinicopathological characteristics and is an independent risk factor for poorer survival and peritoneal metastasis but not local recurrence. ΔPM > 8 mm combined with circumferential involvement or esophageal invasion is associated with relatively poor survival outcomes.

A systematic review of minimal length of lroximal margin in gastric adenocarcinoma resection

For early distal gastric cancers, a proximal margin (PM) > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

INTRODUCTION

In gastric cancer surgery, microscopic positive margin is a poor prognostic factor whereas complete resection with tumor-free margins remains a challenging issue. European guidelines recommended a macroscopic margin of 5 or even 8 cm for diffuse-type cancers to achieve R0 resection. However, it is unclear if the length of negative proximal margin (PM) could have a prognostic impact on survival. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing PM length and its prognostic impact in gastric adenocarcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for "gastric cancer" or "gastric adenocarcinoma," combined with "proximal margin," between January 1990 and June 2021. English-written studies that specified PM length were included. Survival data, in relation to PM, were extracted.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies, with a total number of 10,067 patients, met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mean length of proximal margin on the whole population varied from 2.6 to 5.29 cm. Three studies found minimal PM cut-off to improve overall survival in univariate analysis. Concerning recurrence-free survival analysis, only 2 series showed better results with PM > 2 or > 3 cm, using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent impact of PM on overall survival in 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

For early distal gastric cancers, a PM > 2-3 cm might probably be sufficient. For advanced or proximal tumors, many confounding factors have a prognostic impact on survival and recurrence and negative margin involvement may be more relevant than negative margin length.

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.

Experimental Study on Gastric Labeling by Magnetic Detector Combined With Magnetic Bead

OBJECTIVE

Preoperative labeling of gastric cancer is an important means to determine the surgical margin. At present, there are many commonly used labeling methods. However, which is more accurate and has fewer complications remains to be studied. Through animal experiments, this study explored the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of a magnetic detector combined with magnetic beads for the preoperative labeling of gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 10 beagle dogs were included in the study. Each dog was randomly labeled with magnetic beads in the gastric body and antrum. After labeling, the magnetic detector was used to explore the gastric serosa surface, and the positioning titanium clip was released at the detected magnetic bead. The main monitoring index was to measure the distance between the labeled magnetic beads and the positioning titanium clamped. The secondary indexes were detection time, magnetic induction intensity, magnetic bead shedding rate, mucosal injury rate, bleeding, and leukocyte and C-reactive protein levels before and 24 hours after the operation.

RESULTS

All 10 beagle dogs completed the marking and exploration successfully. The average distance between the magnetic beads and the positioning titanium clip in 20 cases was 5.90±2.36 mm. The average detection time was 1.60±0.69 min, and the average magnetic induction intensity was 3.76±1.11 mT. No magnetic beads were found to fall off, 1 case had a mild mucosal injury, and 2 cases had a small amount of bleeding when releasing the positioning titanium clip. The white blood cells before and 24 hours after the operation were 7.43±0.94(×10 9 /L) versus 7.79±0.67(×10 9 /L) ( P =0.34). The C-reactive protein before and 24 hours after the operation were 5.24±0.97 µg/mL versus 5.95±1.02 µg/mL ( P =0.13).

CONCLUSION

A magnetic detector combined with magnetic beads for gastric cancer labeling is feasible, accurate, and safe. It is expected to be further applied in the clinic.

Laparoscopic Function-Preserving Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer or Esophagogastric Junction Cancer: A Narrative Review

Function-preserving procedures to maintain postoperative quality of life are an important aspect of treatment for early gastric cancer. Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with a small remnant stomach, namely laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LsTG), are alternative function-preserving procedures for laparoscopic total gastrectomy of early proximal gastric cancer. In LPG, esophagogastrostomy with techniques to prevent reflux and double-tract and jejunal interposition including esophagojejunostomy is usually chosen for reconstruction. The double-flap technique is currently a preferred reconstruction technique in Japan as an esophagogastrostomy approach to prevent reflux esophagitis. However, standardized reconstruction methods after LPG have not yet been established. In LsTG, preservation of the esophagogastric junction and the fundus prevents reflux and malnutrition, which may maintain quality of life. However, whether LsTG is an oncologically and nutritionally acceptable procedure compared with laparoscopic total gastrectomy or LPG is a concern. In this review, we summarize the status of reconstruction in LPG and the oncological and nutritional aspects of LsTG as a function-preserving gastrectomy for early proximal gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer.

Extent of Surgical Resection for Gastric Cancer: The Safety Distance Between the Tumor and the Proximal Resection Margin

A potentially curative treatment scheme for gastric cancer is considered futile without a proper surgical resection. An oncological, surgical resection for gastric cancer prerequisites a proper resection of the stomach, and a D2 lymph node dissection followed by reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract continuity. Recently, as the favorable impact of organ preserving surgery on functional outcomes has been increasingly appreciated; distal gastrectomy represents a valid alternative to total gastrectomy provided that the proper oncological principles are not violated. However, the appropriateness of distal gastrectomy as a valid type of resection becomes synonymous with achieving a negative proximal resection margin. The purpose of the present study was to assess the optimal distance between the tumor and the resection margin in a gastrectomy with curative intent, performed for gastric cancer, by reviewing the relevant literature. Having in mind, the well documented discrepancy between the gross and the pathologic boundaries of the tumor, pitfalls might be encountered. Current published guidelines have used a "safety distance" i.e., >4 or 5 cm between the proximal macroscopic tumor border and the proximal resection margin in order to guarantee a negative resection margin on pathology. An increased distance of safety is currently proposed in high-risk tumors such as tumors of the diffuse histological type.

Minimum resection length to ensure a pathologically negative distal margin and the preservation of a larger remnant stomach in proximal gastrectomy for early upper gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

In proximal gastrectomy (PG), a longer distal margin (DM) length should be maintained to obtain a pathologically negative DM. However, a shorter DM length is preferred to preserve a large remnant stomach for favorable postoperative outcomes. Evidence regarding the minimum DM length to ensure a pathologically negative DM is useful.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PG or total gastrectomy for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer limited to the upper third were enrolled. A new parameter, ΔDM, which corresponded to the pathological extension distal to the gross tumor boundary towards the resection stump, was evaluated. The maximum ΔDM, which is the length ensuring a pathologically negative DM, was first determined. Furthermore, the possible incidences of pathologically positive DM were calculated for each pathological type and clinical tumor (cTumor) size.

RESULTS

Of 361 patients eligible for this study, 190 and 171 were assigned to differentiated (Dif) and undifferentiated types (Und), respectively. The maximum ΔDM was 30 and 40 mm in Dif and Und, respectively. Considering a correlation between cTumor size and ΔDM, and possible incidences of pathologically positive DM, 10, 20, and 30 mm were the minimal gross DM lengths in Dif when cTumor size was ≤ 15 mm, > 15 and ≤ 50 mm, and > 50 mm, respectively. In Und, the incidences of pathologically positive DM were 0.59% and 2.3% for gross DM lengths of 30 and 20 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The minimum DM lengths to ensure a pathologically negative DM in PG are proposed according to the pathological type of early upper gastric cancer.

Minimum Esophageal Resection Length to Ensure Negative Proximal Margin in Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Objective

To identify the minimum length of esophageal resection to ensure a pathologically negative proximal margin (PM) in total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Background

In total gastrectomy, a certain esophageal length is resected to obtain a pathologically negative PM because of the possibility of unexpected pathological esophageal invasion. However, a recommendation regarding the esophageal transection site in total gastrectomy has not been established.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent total gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2005 to 2018 were collected. We evaluated the length of unexpected pathological esophageal invasion (esophageal ΔPM) in each type of disease and each location of the gross proximal tumor boundary (PB) using the length between the PB and the esophagogastric junction (PB-EGJ length).

Results

Of the 1005 patients eligible for this study, 277, 196, and 532 had cT1, cT2-4 expansive (Exp), and cT2-4 infiltrative (Inf) growth patterns, respectively. In cT1 and Exp, no unexpected pathological esophageal invasion occurred when the PB-EGJ length was >1 cm, whereas pathological esophageal invasion occurred in 20.0% of cT1 and 32.7% of Exp when the PB-EGJ length was ≤1 cm. The esophageal ΔPM was <1 cm. In Inf, no unexpected pathological esophageal invasion occurred when the PB-EGJ length was >3 cm, whereas pathological esophageal invasion occurred in 17.4% of patients when the PB-EGJ length was ≤3 cm. The esophageal ΔPM was <2 cm.

Conclusions

New recommendations regarding the esophageal resection length required to ensure a pathologically negative PM in total gastrectomy are herein proposed.

The oncologic safety and accuracy of indocyanine green fluorescent dye marking in securing the proximal resection margin during totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative study

Background

Securing the proximal resection margin in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer is related to curability and recurrence, while reducing the operation time is related to patient safety. This study aimed to investigate the role of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent dye marking in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, whether it is an oncologically safe and accurate procedure that can be conducted in a single centre.

Methods

The data of 93 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (non-ICG group) or totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy using ICG (ICG group) between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. To correct for confounding factors, a propensity score matching was performed.

Results

Proximal resection margin did not vary with the ICG injection site after the propensity score matching (lower ICG, 3.84 cm vs. lower non-ICG, 4.42 cm, p = 0.581; middle ICG, 3.34 cm vs. middle non-ICG, 3.20 cm; p = 0.917), while the operation time was reduced by a mean of 34 min in the ICG group (ICG, 239.3 [95% confidence interval, 220.1–258.5 min]; non-ICG, 273.0 [95% confidence interval, 261.6–284.4] min; p = 0.006).

Conclusions

ICG injection for securing the proximal resection margin in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is an oncologically safe and accurate procedure, with the advantage of reducing the operation time of gastric cancer surgery while it has the benefit of locating the tumour or clips when it is impossible to locate the tumour during surgery due to the inability to perform an endoscopic examination or when it is hard to directly palpate the tumour or clips in the operating theatre; this can be performed at a single centre.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02494-5.

Partial Gastrectomy is Associated with Improved Overall Survival in Signet-Ring Cell Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Signet-ring cell gastric cancer (SRGC) is a histological variant of gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) with a worse prognosis compared to non-signet-ring cell gastric cancer (NSRGC). To our knowledge, the overall survival (OS) among patients with SRGC undergoing total/near-total (TG) versus partial gastrectomy (PG) has never been reported from a large-scale Western database.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with both SRGC and NSRGC using The National Cancer Database.

RESULTS

In total, 17,086 patients were included. Patients who underwent TG versus PG were 25.5% (n = 770) versus 74.5% (n = 2246) for SRGC, and 20.9% (n = 2943) versus 79.1% (n = 11,127) for NSRGC, respectively. Patients who had SRGC were more likely to undergo TG (25.5% versus 20.9% P< 0.0001). Patients with distal gastric tumors were less likely to undergo TG (16.5% versus 25.4% P < 0.0001). Patients undergoing PG for the SRGC histological variant had better OS (HR = 0.68, CI=0.61-0.76; P < 0.0001) versus those who underwent TG. Similarly, NSRGC patients undergoing PG also had improved OS, but to a lesser extent (HR = 0.91, CI = 0.85-0.96; P= 0.002). Overall, PG for GAC was associated with improved OS compared to TG, although the OS benefit is more profound in the SRGC histological variant (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that TG is not associated with improved OS in patients who undergo gastrectomy for GAC, even when adjusted for tumor location. The survival differences are more pronounced in the SRGC histology variant. The worst survival is observed in patients with SRGC who undergo TG after adjusting for different covariates.

Molecular risk markers related to local tumor recurrence at histological margin-free endoscopically resected early gastric cancers: A pilot study

Local recurrences in early gastric cancers (EGCs) after complete endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remain problematic. Here, we investigated the spatially sequential molecular changes in various cancer-related proteins along the axis of the histologically clear but recurrent resection margins (TRM) to determine the appropriate tumor-free margin distance and potential molecular risk markers related to local recurrence. Five eligible patients with recurrent EGCs after complete ESD were selected from 548 EGC patients. The specimens, including recurrent resection margin axis, were divided into 5 zones. Digital spatial profiling assay was performed to quantify the expression level of 31 cancer-related proteins along each zone. p-Chk1 level was significantly reduced in TRM zone than non-recurrent resection margin. The expression of p44/42 ERK and p-Chk1 were significantly decreased along the lateral axis of the recurrent resection margin, with no significance toward the normal zone, which may suggest that p44/42 ERK and p-Chk1 may be involved in the recurrent side compared to non-recurrent margin. Although we could not evaluate more than 5.5 mm, the significant linear decreases in p44/42 ERK and p-Chk1 were maintained until at least 5.5 mm from the tumor zone in the TRM direction. We estimated the possible margin distance using scatterplots and linear regression analyses, which also showed the estimated distance more than 5.5 mm. In conclusion, the p-Chk1 and p44/42 ERK may be potential candidates of molecular risk markers that may be related to the local recurrence after complete ESD, and a tumor-free distance of 5.5 mm is not enough for safety margin.

Oncological Impact of Gross Proximal Margin Length in Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Is the Japanese Recommendation Valid?

Objective

To identify an oncological impact of gross proximal margin (PM) length in distal gastrectomy for cancer.

Summary background data

In Japan, to obtain pathologically negative PMs in gastrectomy for cancer, the Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines (GCTGs) recommend maintaining the PM length to at least 2 cm for cT1, 3 cm for the expansive growth type (Exp), and 5 cm for the infiltrative growth type (Inf) of cT2-4. The GCTGs also recommend confirming pathologically negative PMs by intraoperative frozen section analyses when the gross PMs are shorter than the recommendations. However, whether they are valid is unknown.

Methods

Patients who intended to undergo curative distal gastrectomy were included. They were divided into groups A (adherence to the GCTGs) and NA (nonadherence) according to the PM length. The incidence of pathologically positive PMs and survival outcomes were compared between the groups. Propensity scores (PSs) were used in comparisons of survival outcomes to eliminate potential confounders.

Results

A total of 1036 patients were eligible. Pathologically positive PMs were identified in group NA with cT1 and Inf, and the incidence was 1.6% and 3.1%, respectively. Adjusted analysis using the PSs showed comparable survival outcomes between the groups. However, the hazard ratios according to the PSs presented a possible survival advantage in maintaining the recommended gross PM lengths except for cT1 and Exp located in the lower stomach.

Conclusion

Surgeons should maintain the gross PM lengths recommended in the GCTGs to both obtain pathologically negative PMs and avoid survival disadvantages.

A "Just Enough" Gross Proximal Margin Length Ensuring Pathologically Complete Resection in Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Introduction

The objective of this study is to determine a "just enough" gross proximal margin (PM) length to ensure a pathologically negative PM in distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. There is a discrepancy between the gross and pathological proximal boundaries of gastric cancer. We must transect the stomach maintaining some safety margins to obtain a pathologically negative PM. However, we have no standard to indicate where to transect the stomach.

Methods

Patients undergoing distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer were enrolled. A new parameter named ΔPM, which corresponded to the pathological extension proximal to the gross tumor boundary toward the resection stump, was evaluated. The number of patients was counted in each ΔPM range of 1-cm increments. The maximum ΔPM was defined as the first value at which the number of patients became 0, and it was determined as the recommended gross PM length for each disease type.

Results

In cT1, 259 and 330 patients were assigned to differentiated (Dif) and undifferentiated types (Und), respectively. The maximum ΔPM was 20 mm for Dif and 40 mm for Und. In cT2-4, 194 and 490 patients were assigned to the expansive (Exp) and infiltrative (Inf) growth types. The maximum ΔPM was 30 mm for Exp. The maximum ΔPM was 50 mm for Inf of less than 80 mm and 60 mm for Inf of 80 mm or more.

Conclusions

A newly recommended gross PM length to ensure pathologically negative PMs in distal gastrectomy for each gastric cancer type was determined.

Prognostic value and nomograms of proximal margin distance in gastric cancer with radical distal gastrectomy

Objective

The proximal margin (PM) distance for distal gastrectomy (DG) of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. This study investigated the prognostic value of PM distance for survival outcomes, and aimed to combine clinicopathologic variables associated with survival outcomes after DG with different PM distance for GC into a prediction nomogram.

Methods

Patients who underwent radical DG from June 2004 to June 2014 at Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University were included. The first endpoints of the prognostic value of PM distance (assessed in 0.5 cm increments) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards regression was performed using the training set, and the nomogram was constructed, patients were chronologically assigned to the training set for dates from June 1, 2004 to January 30, 2012 (n=493) and to the validation set from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (n=211).

Results

Among 704 patients with pTNM stage I, pTNM stage II, T1−2, T3−4, N0, differentiated type, tumor size ≤5.0 cm, a PM of (2.1−5.0) cmvs. PM≤2.0 cm showed a statistically significant difference in DFS and OS, while a PM>5.0 cm was not associated with any further improvement in DFS and OSvs. a PM of 2.1−5.0 cm. In patients with pTNM stage III, N1, N2−3, undifferentiated type, tumor size >5.0 cm, the PM distance was not significantly correlated with DFS and OS between patients with a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm and a PM≤2 cm, or between patients with a PM >5.0 cm and a PM of (2.1−5.0) cm, so there were no significant differences across the three PM groups. In the training set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.721 and 0.735, respectively, and in the validation set, the C-indexes of DFS and OS, were 0.752 and 0.751, respectively.

Conclusions

It is necessary to obtain not less than 2.0 cm of PM distance in early-stage disease, while PM distance was not associated with long-term survival in later and more aggressive stages of disease because more advanced GC is a systemic disease. Different types of patients should be considered for removal of an individualized PM distance intra-operatively. We developed a universally applicable prediction model for accurately determining the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS and OS of GC patients according to their preoperative clinicopathologic characteristics and PM distance.

Optimal proximal resection margin distance for gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The conventional guidelines to obtain a safe proximal resection margin (PRM) of 5-6 cm during advanced gastric cancer (AGC) surgery are still applied by many surgeons across the world. Several recent studies have raised questions regarding the need for such extensive resection, but without reaching consensus. This study was designed to prove that the PRM distance does not affect the prognosis of patients who undergo gastrectomy for AGC.

AIM

To investigate the influence of the PRM distance on the prognosis of patients who underwent gastrectomy for AGC.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of 1518 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for AGC between June 2004 and December 2007 at Asan Medical Center, a tertiary care center in Korea, were reviewed retrospectively for the study. The demographics and clinicopathologic outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery with different PRM distances using one-way ANOVA and Fisher’s exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The influence of PRM on recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

The median PRM distance was 4.8 cm and 3.5 cm in the distal gastrectomy (DG) and total gastrectomy (TG) groups, respectively. Patient cohorts in the DG and TG groups were subdivided into different groups according to the PRM distance; ≤ 1.0 cm, 1.1-3.0 cm, 3.1-5.0 cm and > 5.0 cm. The DG and TG groups showed no statistical difference in recurrence rate (23.5% vs 30.6% vs 24.0% vs 24.7%, P = 0.765) or local recurrence rate (5.9% vs 6.5% vs 8.4% vs 6.2%, P = 0.727) according to the distance of PRM. In both groups, Kalpan-Meier analysis showed no statistical difference in recurrence-free survival (P = 0.467 in DG group; P = 0.155 in TG group) or overall survival (P = 0.503 in DG group; P = 0.155 in TG group) according to the PRM distance. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model revealed that in both groups, there was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival according to the PRM distance.

CONCLUSION

The distance of PRM is not a prognostic factor for patients who undergo curative gastrectomy for AGC.

Surgical margins in gastric cancer T2 and T3 and its relationship with recurrence and overall survival at 5 years

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is the potentially curative treatment in gastric cancer. However, definitive surgical margins are controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational study. All patients with gastric cancer treated with surgery of T2 and T3, tumors without involvement of the esophagogastric junction and without neoadjuvant treatment were included.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were included. 44 men (62.9%) and 26 women (37.1%). In multivariate analysis, depth of the invasion (T2 vs T3), lymphadenectomy and more than 5 positive nodes were independent factors for recurrence at 5 years. Depth of the invasion (T2 vs T3), intra-abdominal metastases and recurrence were independent factors of overall survival at 5 years. ROC analysis did not show a definitive surgical margin with better 5-year overall survival and lower recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with gastric cancer T2 and T3, surgical margin did not affect 5-year overall survival or recurrence rate. Other factors are associated with recurrence and 5-year overall survival at 5 years, regardless of the distance from the tumor to the margin.

The Role of Continuing Perioperative Chemotherapy Post Surgery in Patients with Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: a Multicenter Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this cohort study was to assess the benefit that patients with lower esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma receive by continuing perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred twelve patients underwent radical tumor surgical resection after preoperative chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was mainly ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery vs. no postoperative treatment.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients (67.3%) had GEJ and 102 (32.7%) lower esophageal adenocarcinoma. Microscopically clear surgical margins (R0), according to the Royal College of Pathologists, were achieved in 208 patients (66.7%). In total, 225 patients (72.1%) continued perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. PSM was used to create two patient groups, well-balanced for basic epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological characteristics. The first included 148 patients who continued perioperative chemotherapy after surgery and the second 86, who did not receive postoperative treatment. The first group had non-significantly different median time-to-relapse (TTR 22.2 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.627), overall survival (OS 46.1 vs. 36.7 months, p = 0.199), and post-relapse survival (15.3 vs. 8.7 months, p = 0.122). Subgroup analysis showed that only patients with microscopically residual disease after surgery (R1 resection) benefited from continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery for both TTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.556, 95% CI 0.330-0.936, p = 0.027) and OS (HR 0.530, 95% CI 0.313-0.898, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery was not associated with improved outcome in patients with E/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients with microscopically residual disease post-surgery might receive a potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis based on high-quality retrospective studies and clinical randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Additional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) with open gastrectomy (OG) have been published, and the meta-analysis of this subject should be improved.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and high-quality retrospective studies, which compared LG and OG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) treatment and were published in English and Chinese between January 2000 and February 2017, were selected through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database by two reviewers independently. The Jadad Composite Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias for all included studies. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, harvested lymph nodes and 5-year overall survival (OS) were considered as primary endpoints and were compared.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including a total of 9337 cases (5000 in LG and 4337 in OG) were enrolled. LG showed longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. Based on the subgroup analysis of the sample size, however, there was no difference in operative time between LG and OG. The number of harvested lymph nodes, 5-year OS, and postoperative morbidity were similar.

CONCLUSION

LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC, with quicker postoperative recovery and comparable safety and efficacy.

Tumor Biological Aspects of Epithelial versus Mesenchymal Tumors of the Gastrointestinal Tract

One of the holy grails of cancer surgery for surgical oncologists is to perform a macroscopically complete resection of the affected organ or site with negative microscopic margins. The surgical oncologist must also be mindful of what constitutes appropriately-sized negative margins. However, what is necessary, based on the best available evidence, can vary considerably for different malignancies arising within the same organ. This review compares two different gastric and rectal malignancies, one each of epithelial and of mesenchymal origin. Data supporting extent of margins will be reviewed, illustrating the importance of knowing the histologic diagnosis prior to surgery to provide proper oncologic care.

Tumor localization using radio-frequency identification clip marker: experimental results of an ex vivo porcine model

PURPOSE

With the widespread use of minimally invasive surgery, tumor detection is becoming more difficult. We present the experimental results of a radio-frequency identification (RFID) lesion detection system in an ex vivo porcine model.

METHODS

The efficacy and feasibility of a newly developed RFID lesion detection system were examined. It was applied to the stomach and colon of pigs weighing 40 kg. The RFID clip was attached to the upper and lower mucosal sides of the stomach. Colon specimens with thin and thick walls were used. The clipped sites were marked on the serosa by a pin. The longest distance from the pin the RFID tag could be detected was measured 25 times in each direction.

RESULTS

In the upper gastric wall, the RFID tag detection distance was 4.5 ± 0.9 mm, 5.6 ± 0.7 mm, 12.5 ± 0.7 mm, and 5.3 ± 0.5 mm in the four directions, respectively (right, left, upper, and lower). In the antrum, the RFID tag detection distance was 5.8 ± 0.7 mm, 6.9 ± 0.5 mm, 5.6 ± 0.5 mm, and 3.7 ± 0.5 mm in the four directions. In the thin colon, the RFID tag detection distance was 6.3 ± 0.5 mm, 5.0 ± 0.5 mm, 9.7 ± 0.7 mm, and 6.4 ± 0.4 mm in the four directions. In the thick colon, the RFID tag detection distance was 3.5 ± 0.8 mm, 6.6 ± 0.5 mm, 8.4 ± 0.6 mm, and 9.8 ± 0.5 mm in the four directions. The area of detection was smallest for the antrum (83.7 mm²) and similar for the other sites (150.6, 154.7 and 157.7 mm² for the upper body, thin colon, and thick colon, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The distance at which the RFID tag was detected was usually within 10 mm. These results indicate the feasibility of the clinical application of the add-on clip and RFID tag as a marker for identifying the location of various gastrointestinal tumors.

Risk Factors of Microscopic Invasion in Early Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of microscopic invasion to determine the adequate resection margin in early gastric cancer (EGC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed that included patients who underwent gastrectomy for clinical early gastric cancer (cEGC) at Seoul National University Hospital between January 2007 and December 2010. After subtracting the microscopic resection margin from the gross resection margin for each proximal or distal resection margin, microscopic invasion was represented by the larger value. Microscopic invasion and its risk factors were analyzed according to the clinicopathologic characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 861 patients were enrolled in the study. Microscopic invasion of cEGC was 6.0±12.8 mm, and the proportion of patients with microscopic invasion ≥0 mm was 78.4%. In the risk group, tumor location, pT stage, and differentiation did not significantly discriminate the presence of microscopic invasion. The microscopic invasion of EGC-IIb was 13.9±16.8 mm, which was significantly greater than that of EGC-I. No linear correlation was observed between the overall tumor size and microscopic invasion (R=0.030). The independent risk factors for microscopic invasion ≥20 mm were EGC-IIb vs. EGC-I/IIa/IIc/III (odds ratio [OR], 3.103; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.533-6.282; P=0.002) and male vs. female sex (OR, 1.655; 95% CI, 1.012-2.705; P=0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Male sex and EGC-IIb were independent risk factors for microscopic invasion ≥20 mm. Examination of intraoperative frozen sections is highly recommended to avoid resection margin involvement, especially in cases of EGC-IIb.

[Endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric and esophageal carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

The treatment of early gastric (EGC) and esophageal carcinomas (EEC) is an interdisciplinary challenge. The risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is the crucial point in choosing the correct treatment option.

OBJECTIVE

This article gives an overview of the current treatment options and provides help in choosing the correct therapy.

METHOD

Current concepts and therapy algorithms are presented on the basis of a literature review and data from our own center.

RESULTS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for mucosal gastric cancer with good or moderate differentiation (G1,2) without macroscopic ulceration, in elevated type lesions smaller than 2 cm in size or depressed lesions smaller than 1 cm in size. In additional chromoendoscopy should be carried out. The extent of surgical resection is defined by the location of the tumor. A safety margin of at least 3 cm should be applied in distal gastric resections whereas the first line goal in gastrectomy is to achieve an R0 resection. In cN0 tumors a D1 lymphadenectomy (LA) seems to be sufficient. Minimally invasive techniques currently show promising results especially for a subtotal resection. The treatment strategy in EEC differs depending on the tumor entity. Mucosal squamous cell carcinoma with high risk factors (L1,V1) and all cN0 submucosal tumors without the detection of LNM should be referred to primary surgical resection. Early stage cN+ squamous cell carcinomas should be preoperatively treated with chemoradiotherapy. Adenocarcinoma with infiltration of the deeper submucosa (sm2,3) and high-risk sm1 tumors require surgical treatment. The standard operating procedure for EEC is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with 2‑field LA preferably performed as a hybrid or by a completely minimally invasive procedure. The procedure of choice in endoscopic resection of EEC is resection with the suck and cut technique.

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.

The significance of a nineteenth century definition in the era of genomics: linitis plastica

Background

Linitis plastica due to gastric adenocarcinoma is a condition with a long history, but still lacks a standardized definition and is commonly confused with Borrmann type IV, Lauren diffuse, and signet-cell type gastric cancer. The absence of a clear definition is a problem when investigating its biological characteristics and role as a possible independent factor for prognosis. Nevertheless, the biological behavior for linitis plastica, which is unique, may be valuable in risk stratification and have implications for treatment. A definition of linitis plastica based on molecular or genomic criteria could represent a useful starting point for investigating new targeted therapies.

Main body

This literature review of linitis plastica will focus on the current classifications for gastric cancer, illustrating how the concept of linitis plastica relates to them in most cases and identifying a clear and reproducible definition. Moreover, the review will highlight the diagnostic challenges associated with linitis plastica, its prognostic implications, and the therapeutic options available. Future perspectives for its management are also addressed.

Conclusion

Linitis plastica is a carcinoma with a scirrhous stroma, involving the submucosal and muscular layers of the stomach even in the absence of mucosal alteration. In most cases, the primary cancer cells are signet-ring cells or scattered cells in the context of a poorly differentiated carcinoma. Diagnosis is challenging. Staging should be thorough, including diagnostic laparoscopy in all cases due to the high incidence of peritoneal involvement. The prognostic significance of linitis plastica is still controversial. Curative-intent surgery, when feasible, should be performed, with a multimodality treatment approach. Cancer-stroma interactions are important features of this disease, and represent attaining potential target for future therapies. Future pathologic assessments of gastric cancer should report the stromal reaction in order to allow better characterization of the tumor.

Totally laparoscopic 95% gastrectomy for cancer: technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

Total gastrectomy is the standard treatment for tumours arising in the proximal stomach and for diffuse cancer according to the Lauren classification. Laparoscopic approach is progressively accepted and provides encouraging results. In order to reduce complications associated to the esophago-jejunal anastomosis, the concept of the 95 % open gastrectomy was developed in Japan, in the early 1980s. This procedure provides the spearing of a small remnant gastric stump of 2 cm and allows performing a gastro-jejunal anastomosis. Unlike the 7/8 gastrectomy, the 95 % gastrectomy allows the complete resection of the gastric fundus and an optimized pericardial lymph node dissection (group 1 and 2). We herein describe, step-by-step, our technique of full laparoscopic 95 % gastrectomy (G95 %), with D2 lymphadenectomy, including complete lymphadenectomy of the cardial nodes.

DISCUSSION

When it is possible to respect the oncologic criteria regarding proximal resection margin, 95 % gastrectomy would offer best short-term results, such as lower anastomotic leak rate and a better quality of life, limiting the effect of disruption of the eso-gastric junction.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic G95 % is feasible and safe; it could be performed without any additional technical difficulties. Controlled clinical trials are necessary to confirm the encouraging results of the cases series, recently reported in literature.