Incidence of microscopically positive proximal margins in adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction

Transthoracic single-port-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic transhiatal approach for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The surgical approach for patients with Siewert type II AEG remains controversial. Several studies have described a new laparoscopic radical resection approach of Siewert type II AEG through the left diaphragm. However, the technical safety and feasibility of the new surgical approach compared with the transhiatal approach have not yet been tested.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed patients with AEG who underwent TSLG and LTH operations in the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between January 2017 and April 2021. Histologically confirmed AEG and D2 lymphadenectomy with curative R0 patients were included, and patients with Siewert I/III AEG or distant metastasis were excluded. Blood loss, the amount of harvested lymph node, and complications related to surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients with Siewert type II AEG were analyzed, 44 in the TSLG group and 55 in the LTH group. There was no difference in clinicopathological features between the two groups. The more harvested lymph node (23.33 ± 11.41 vs. 32.18 ± 12.85, p < 0.01), lower mediastinal lymph node (1.07 ± 2.08 vs. 3.25 ± 3.31, p < 0.01), and longer proximal margin length (3.08 ± 1.19 vs. 4.47 ± 0.95 cm, p < 0.01) were observed in the TSLG group. The rate of cure (R0 gastrectomy) in the TSLG group was higher than that in the LTH group (100% vs. 89.09%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The TSLG approach is associated with improved surgical views, simplified lymphatic dissection in the inferior mediastinum, and more reliable margins. TSLG surgery may be an effective addition to LTH surgery, particularly when lower mediastinal lymph node metastases are suspected.

Short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for total gastrectomy: a single-institute experience

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RLS) for total gastrectomy remains unclear. This study focused on evaluating the short-term outcomes of RLS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for total gastrectomy.

METHODS

One hundred and ten patients who underwent completed laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer between September 2018 and June 2022 were retrospectively collected and classified into two groups (65 CLS and 45 RLS) according to different operation approach. Twenty-four RLS cases underwent single-incision plus two ports laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 2) and twenty-one underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Surgical outcomes, pain intensity, cosmetic and postoperative morbidity, and mortality were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of postoperative complications was similar between the CLS group and the RLS group (16.9% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.270). It was also comparable in the Clavien-Dindo classification (P = 0.774). However, compared with the CLS group, the RLS group had a significantly shorter total length of incision (5.6 ± 1.0 cm vs. 7.1 ± 0.7 cm, P = 0.000); shorter time to first ambulation (24.9 ± 5.9 h vs. 27.6 ± 5.0 h, P = 0.009), flatus (3.0 ± 0.8 d vs. 3.5 ± 1.0 d, P = 0.022) and oral intake (4.0 ± 1.6 d vs. 6.1 ± 5.1 d, P = 0.011); lower white blood cell count on the third day after the operation (9.8 ± 4.0*10⁹/L vs. 11.6 ± 4.7*10⁹/L, P = 0.037); and lower visual analogue scale score on postoperative days 1 and 3(3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, P = 0.044 and 0.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, P = 0.000 respectively). On the other hand, it didn't find any difference in short-term outcomes between the SILS + 2 group and the SILS + 1 group (P > 0.05). But the proximal resection margin was longer in the SILS + 2 group than in the SILS + 1 group (2.6 ± 0.7 cm vs. 1.5 ± 0.9 cm, P = 0.046) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS for total gastrectomy is a feasible and safe technique when performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. Moreover, compared with SILS + 1, SILS + 2 might have some advantages in AEG patients.

Extent of gastrectomy and lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common and lethal cancers worldwide and is associated with a high frequency of nodal metastasis. The value of multimodality therapy is well-established, but gastric resection and locoregional lymph node dissection are important mainstays in potentially curative therapy. However, there has been considerable regional variation in surgical approach and debate regarding the ideal extent of gastric resection, gastric reconstruction, and extent of lymphadenectomy. This chapter outlines the current evidence in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The advent of minimally invasive approaches to gastric operations is also discussed.

Optimal surgery for esophagogastric junctional cancer

Esophagogastric junctional cancer is classified into three categories according to the Siewert classification, which reflects the epidemiological and biological characteristics. Therapeutic strategies have been evaluated according to the three Siewert types. There is a consensus that types I and III should be treated as esophageal cancer and gastric cancer, respectively. On the other hand, type II is often described as true cardiac cancer, which has different clinicopathological features from the other types. Thus, there is no consensus on the surgical management of type II esophagogastric junctional cancer. The optimal surgical management should focus on the principles of cancer surgery, which take into consideration oncological curability, including an appropriate resection margin, adequate lymphadenectomy, and minimization of postoperative complications. In this review, we evaluate the current relevant literature and evidence, on the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junctional cancer, focusing on type II. Esophagectomy with a thoracic approach has the advantage of ensuring a sufficient proximal resection margin and adequate mediastinal lymphadenectomy. However, the oncological benefit is offset by a high incidence of postoperative complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could be a possible solution to reduce complications and improve long-term outcomes. Further development of surgical treatments for Siewert type II is required to improve the outcomes. Furthermore, the surgical team should have expertise in both gastric cancer and esophageal cancer treatment, or patients should be managed with close collaboration between thoracic surgeons and gastric cancer surgeons.

Western strategy for EGJ carcinoma

In this paper, the epidemiological and clinicobiological behavior of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma in the West is compared and contrasted to that in the East, and an overview is provided of current therapeutic strategies employed for this type of tumor in Western countries. It is well known that multimodal treatment is the therapeutic standard in locally advanced EGJ adenocarcinoma, but whether neoadjuvant/perioperative chemotherapy (CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the optimal approach is still debated. Neoadjuvant CRT improves local control in locally advanced Siewert type I and II tumors, so it should be considered the treatment of choice. In the subset of these patients with microscopic systemic disease at diagnosis, more intensive exclusive chemotherapy protocols could be of benefit. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify these patients before planning the treatment. For Siewert type III tumors, perioperative chemotherapy is the standard. While there is general agreement on the optimal surgical approach for Siewert types I and III (a two-field Ivor Lewis operation and a total gastrectomy with distal esophagectomy, respectively), no standard surgical treatment has been defined for Siewert type II tumors. When data from Western series on proximal and circumferential resection margins and on nodal spread in Siewert type II tumors are taken into account, the optimal surgical approach appears to be Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Whether the extent of esophageal invasion can correctly predict nodal involvement in middle-upper mediastinal stations as a means to restrict indications for transthoracic esophagectomy requires further investigation in the West.

What to do after R1-resection of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The management of R1-resected adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) is unclear. We aimed to identify risk factors and prevalence of R1 resections, their recurrence and prognosis, and efficacy of postoperative therapy.

METHODS

A single center cohort of 766 consecutive patients undergoing curative intent resection for AEG was analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

R1-resection rate was 13%. Poorer tumor differentiation, higher T-, N-, and UICC/AJCC-stages were associated with R1-resections. Compared to R0-resected patients, R1-resected patients had a higher incidence of tumor recurrence (77% vs. 32%; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (5-year overall survival 43% vs. 10%; P < 0.001). The pattern of recurrence did not differ between R0- and R1-resections with distant metastases in 90% and 87% of patients with tumor recurrence. We found a trend towards better overall survival for R1-resected patients receiving postoperative therapy compared to R1-resected patients without postoperative therapy (median 17.4 vs. 14.6 months, P = 0.056).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of R1-resections with poor tumor characteristics allows for identification of patients at risk for R1-resection. As in R0-resections, tumor recurrence in R1-resections is mainly systemic, not local. The potential benefit of additive local postoperative therapies in R1-resected patients must be balanced against overall prognosis and therapy-specific morbidity and mortality. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:428-433. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.