Comparisons of short-term and survival outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A pooled analysis of two European randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive techniques have shown better short term and similar oncological outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer in Asian countries. It remains unknown whether these outcomes can be extrapolated to Western countries, where patients often present with advanced gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pooled analysis of two Western randomized controlled trials (STOMACH and LOGICA trial) comparing minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in advanced gastric cancer was performed. Postoperative recovery (complications, mortality, hospital stay), oncological outcomes (lymph node yield, radical resection rate, 1-year survival), and quality of life was assessed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-one patients were included from both trials. Of these, 162 patients (50.5%) were allocated to MIG and 159 patients (49.5%) to OG. A significant difference was seen in blood loss in favor of MIG (150 vs. 260 mL, p < 0.001), whereas duration of surgery was in favor of OG (180 vs. 228.5 min, p = 0.005). Postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes and quality of life were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MIG showed no difference to OG regarding postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes or quality of life, and is therefore a safe alternative to OG in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Health related quality of life following open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy for cancer: Results from a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60-90) in the open group and 68 (50-83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7-83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4-66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires.

Comparisons of perioperative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Data about whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is applicable in serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients remain rare. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy (OG) in pT4a gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection.

METHODS

A total of 1086 consecutive pT4a patients (101 patients with LG and 985 with OG) who underwent curative gastrectomy in a high-volume center between 2006 and 2016 were evaluated. Demographics, surgical, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance baseline confounders, and COX regression analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

After PSM adjustment, a well-balanced cohort comprising 101 patients who underwent LG and 201 who underwent OG was analyzed. Operative time (288.7 vs. 234.2 min; P < 0.001) was significantly longer, while estimated blood loss (172.8 vs. 220.7 ml; P < 0.001) was significantly less in the LG group compared with the OG group. There were no significant differences between groups in total number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative stays, readmission rate, and postoperative complication rate. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was not significant different in the LG and OG groups (66.7% vs. 62.8%, P = 0.668), and the subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that the surgical approach was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 1.123; 95%CI: 0.803-1.570; P = 0.499). In sensitivity analysis including 78 pairs well-matched patients operated by an experienced surgeon, the results were similar to these for the matched entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LG can be a safe and feasible approach for pT4a gastric cancer treatment. However, well-designed high-quality RCTs are expected to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on laparoscopic and robotic distal and total gastrectomy in comparison to open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted and 197 randomized (RCT) and non-randomized (non-RCT) studies were identified. An evaluation of early gastric cancer (EGC) and advanced (AGC) gastric cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

For EGC and laparoscopic distal resection (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG) a total of 10 RCT and 6 non-RCT, including 4329 patients (laparoscopic 2010 vs. open 2319) were identified. At a high evidence level (1+, 1++) there was no significant difference in terms of feasibility, intraoperative outcome and oncological quality, mortality and long-term oncological outcome compared to open gastrectomy (OG). After LDG and LTG patients showed a significantly faster early postoperative recovery and lower total morbidity. In contrast, the operation times were significant longer compared to ODG and OTG. For distal AGC and LDG in 6 RCT, including 2806 patients (LDG 1410 vs. ODG 1369) comparable results could be found also with a high evidence level (1++). The evidence for LTG in cases of AGC was lower (2-, 2+). Currently ,only 6 non-RCT with a total of 1090 patients (LTG 539 vs. OTG 551) are available, which showed comparable results to LDG but further high-quality RCTs are necessary. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is currently being evaluated. According to the first studies RG for EGC seems to be equivalent to LDG; however, the evidence is currently low (3 to 2-).

Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated.

METHODS

A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Total Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study in China

BACKGROUND

Given the great technical difficulty and procedural complexity of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), the technical and oncologic safety of LTG versus open total gastrectomy (OTG) in the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is yet undetermined.

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter cohort study aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LTG with those of OTG in AGC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 588 patients from 3 centers who underwent primary total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy, by well-trained surgeons with adequate experience, for pathologically confirmed locally AGC (T2N0-3, T3N0-3, or T4N0-3) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were identified, and their clinical data were collected from three participating centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 450 cases (LTG, n = 225; OTG, n = 225) were eligible and assessed.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates, or 5-year overall survival (OS) rates between both surgical groups were observed. Although LTG had significantly longer surgical time (262 vs. 180 min, p < 0.001), LTG was associated with fewer postoperative complications [relative risk (RR) 0.583, 95% CI 0.353-0.960, p = 0.047), less intraoperative bleeding (120 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001), longer proximal margin resection (3 vs. 2 cm, p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospitalization (11 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001). The mortality rate was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LTG was not inferior to OTG in terms of survival outcomes and was associated with shorter surgical and postoperative hospitalization time and fewer postoperative complications, suggesting LTG with D2 lymphadenectomy as an important alternative to OTG for patients with AGC, but to be carried out in highly experienced centers.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes at a mono-institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery, a developed technology, is becoming more and more accepted by surgeons. However, the comparison between robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and conventional laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is seldom reported, or usually the sample sizes reported are small. The current research was designed to compare the short-term outcomes of RATG and LATG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC in a mono-institution from China.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients from June 2015 to October 2018 were included in this study. Among them, 106 patients underwent LATG, and 99 patients underwent RATG. The patients' clinicopathological characteristics, surgical performance and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The clinicopathological characteristics showed no difference between the LATG group and the RATG group. However, compared with the LATG group, the operation time was longer (P = 0.000), and the operative blood loss (P = 0.000) and the volume of abdominal drainage was less (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Moreover, the RATG took less time to remove abdominal drainage tube than LATG (P = 0.000). The plasma levels of CRP at 72 h post-operation was lower (P = 0.000), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was more (P = 0.000) in the RATG group. Nevertheless, the postoperative length of stay (P = 0.890), the time to first flatus (P = 0.448), the postoperative complication (P = 0.915) and the visual analogue pain score at 24 h post-operation (P = 0.457) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RATG with D2 lymphadenectomy shows safety and feasibility for AGC and could be served as an alternative treatment for AGC in the future.

Feasibility of laparoscopic total gastrectomy in overweight patients: Implications of less impact of overweight on laparoscopic versus open approach

AIM

To investigate safety and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in overweight (OW) patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent total gastrectomy (110 laparoscopic, 211 open) for gastric cancer between January 1999 and July 2016 were included. Propensity score matching selected 152 patients (76 laparoscopic, 76 open), which were subsequently divided into the OW (≥ 25) or non-OW (< 25) group by body mass index. Postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open approaches were compared between OW and non-OW groups.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched population, baseline characteristics were comparable between the OW and non-OW groups for the laparoscopy and open groups. In the laparoscopy group, operative time was longer (P = 0.01) in the OW group, however, other perioperative results including complication rates were comparable between the non-OW and OW groups. In the open group, number of retrieved lymph nodes were less (P = 0.03) and local complication rate was more frequent (P = 0.03) in the OW group.

CONCLUSION

LTG in OW patients remains technically challenging but can be performed safely. Our findings imply that OW has a lesser effect on the laparoscopic versus open approach to total gastrectomy.