Factors associated with metastasis in superior mesenteric vein lymph node in subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Retrospective case control study

A comprehensive overview of gastric cancer management from a surgical point of view

Despite advancements in medical care, surgical technologies, and the development of novel treatments over the past decade, the prognosis for patients with gastric cancer (GC) has only modestly improved. This is primarily due to the fact that the majority of patients are diagnosed at advanced stages or present with metastatic disease. Radical resection remains the cornerstone of potentially curative treatment, yet the overall 5-year survival rate remains below 35%. The management of GC varies globally, influenced by factors such as geographical disparities, patient comorbidities and performance status, surgical approaches, and available medical resources. Multidisciplinary collaboration and a multimodal treatment approach are essential for optimizing patient outcomes. Surgeons must stay updated on emerging surgical concepts and make informed decisions regarding patient selection, timing of intervention, and the adoption of appropriate surgical techniques to improve both quality of life and prognosis. This review aims to provide a surgical perspective on the management of GC across all stages, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive treatment approach. Endoscopic resection may be a viable option for early GC in patients with minimal risk of lymph node metastasis, particularly in elderly patients with high surgical risk or severe comorbidities. For advanced GC, neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery could be a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes. Conversion surgery offers a potential survival benefit for patients who respond to treatment with tumor downstaging. The treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis remains challenging; however, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy combined with complete cytoreductive surgery or pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy may prolong survival or improve quality of life in highly selected patients.

Normalization weighted combination scores re-evaluate TNM staging of gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study based on a multicenter database

BACKGROUND

The pathological depth of tumor invasion (pT) and lymph node metastasis (pN) are critical independent prognostic factors for patients with gastric cancer (GC), representing effective methods for evaluating prognosis. In this study, the authors employed a normalization weight combination score to calculate the weight ratio of the pT stage and pN stage. Subsequently, the authors established a novel weighted TN (wTN) staging model based on these T and N weights, evaluating its prognostic capacity.

METHODS

This study utilized a training cohort from A Medical University Cancer Hospital and a validation cohort from the SEER database. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and Cox regression were employed to screen clinical characteristics. Multivariate linear regression and cluster analysis calculated the weight ratio of T stage and N stage in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, followed by re-staging. Prognostic value was evaluated using C-index, likelihood ratio, Wald, and Score tests for wTN stage and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. A nomogram model was developed, and accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), decision curve analysis (DCA), and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analyses.

RESULTS

LASSO was used for initial screening, selecting eight potential features for Cox analysis. Age, tumor size, metastasis lymph nodes (MLNs), and tumor location were confirmed as independent prognostic factors. wTN was calculated in the training and validation cohorts, and nomograms were established with the independent factors. N stage had a higher weight proportion than T stage in both cohorts (0.625/0.375 in training cohort, 0.556/0.444 in validation cohort). wTN outperformed the 8th TNM stage in C-index, likelihood ratio, Wald, and Score tests in the training cohort, with successful validation in the validation cohort. Stratified analysis of distinct pathological types further demonstrates that wTN staging exhibits superior prognostic performance.

CONCLUSION

The wTN staging model based on T stage and N stage weights has a good prognostic value for GC patients. The same conclusion was obtained in different pathological stratification.

Efficacy of Lymph Node Location-Number Hybrid Staging System on the Prognosis of Gastric Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis location and number significantly affects the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (GC). This study was designed to examine a new lymph node hybrid staging (hN) system to increase the predictive ability for patients with GC.

METHODS

This study analyzed the gastrointestinal treatment of GC at the Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital from January 2011 to December 2016, and selected 2598 patients from 2011 to 2015 as the training cohort (hN) and 756 patients from 2016 as the validation cohort (2016-hN). The study utilized the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), c-index, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to compare the prognostic performance of the hN with the 8th edition of AJCC pathological lymph node (pN) staging for GC patients.

RESULTS

The ROC verification of the training cohort and validation cohort based on each hN staging and pN staging showed that for each N staging, the hN staging had a training cohort with an AUC of 0.752 (0.733, 0.772) and a validation cohort with an AUC of 0.812 (0.780, 0.845). In the pN staging, the training cohort had an AUC of 0.728 (0.708, 0.749), and the validation cohort had an AUC of 0.784 (0.754, 0.824). c-Index and DCA also showed that hN staging had a higher prognostic ability than pN staging, which was confirmed in the training cohort and the verification cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lymph node location-number hybrid staging can significantly improve the prognosis of patients with GC.

Current status of extended 'D2 plus' lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer

The extent of lymph node (LN) dissection has been a topic of interest in gastric cancer (GC) surgery. D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for most resectable advanced GC cases. The value and indications of more extended lymphadenectomy than D2 remain unclear. Currently, the controversial stations beyond the D2 range are mainly focused on no. 14v, no. 16a2/b1 and no. 13 LN stations. The metastatic rate of no. 14v LN is relatively high in advanced distal GC, particularly in patients with suspicious no. 6 LN metastasis. D2 plus no. 14v LN dissection may be attributed to improved survival outcomes for patients with obvious no. 6 LN metastasis. Although GC with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastases is considered an M1 disease beyond surgical cure, patients with limited PALN metastases may benefit from the treatment strategy of adjuvant chemotherapy followed by D2 plus no. 16a2-b1 LN dissection. In addition, D2 plus no. 13 LN dissection may be an option in a potentially curative gastrectomy for GC with duodenal invasion. The present review discusses the current status and future perspectives of D2 plus lymphadenectomy.

Current status of lymph node dissection in gastric cancer

Gastrectomy with lymph node (LN) dissection has been regarded as the standard surgery for gastric cancer (GC), however, the rational extent of lymphadenectomy remains controversial. Though gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy beyond D2 is classified as a non-standard gastrectomy, its clinical significance has been evaluated in many studies. Although hard evidence is lacking, D2 plus superior mesenteric vein (No. 14v) LN dissection is recommended when harbor metastasis to No. 6 nodes is suspected in the lower stomach, and dissection of splenic hilar (No. 10) LN can be performed for advanced GC invading the greater curvature of the upper stomach, and D2 plus posterior surface of the pancreatic head (No. 13) LN dissection may be an option in a potentially curative gastrectomy for cancer invading the duodenum. Prophylactic D2+ para-aortic nodal dissection (PAND) was not routinely recommended for advanced GC patients, but therapeutic D2 plus PAND may offer a chance of cure in selected patients, preoperative chemotherapy was considered as the standard treatment for GC with para-aortic node metastasis. There has been no consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy for the adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) so far. The length of esophageal invasion can be used as a reference point for mediastinal LN metastases, and the distance from the esophagogastric junction to the distal end of the tumor is essential for determining the optimal extent of resection. The quality of lymphadenectomy may influence prognosis in GC patients. Both hospital volume and surgeon volume were important factors for the quality of radical gastrectomy. Centralization of GC surgery may be needed to improve prognosis.