Routine modified D2 lymphadenectomy performance in pT1-T2N0 gastric cancer

Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection

D2 procedure has been accepted in Far East as the standard treatment for both early (EGC) and advanced gastric cancer (AGC) for many decades. Recently EGC has been successfully treated with endoscopy by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, when restricted or extended Gotoda's criteria can be applied and D1+ surgery is offered only to patients not fitted for less invasive treatment. Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been demonstrating the non inferiority of minimally invasive technique as compared to standard open surgery for the treatment of early cases and recently the feasibility of adequate D1+ dissection has been demonstrated also for the robot assisted technique. In case of AGC the debate on the extent of nodal dissection has been open for many decades. While D2 gastrectomy was performed as the standard procedure in eastern countries, mostly based on observational and retrospective studies, in the west the Medical Research Council (MRC), Dutch and Italian RCTs have been conducted to show a survival benefit of D2 over D1 with evidence based medicine. Unfortunately both the MRC and the Dutch trials failed to show a survival benefit after the D2 procedure, mostly due to the significant increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality, which was referred to splenopancreatectomy. Only 15 years after the conclusion of its accrual, the Dutch trial could report a significant decrease of recurrence after D2 procedure. Recently the long term survival analysis of the Italian RCT could demonstrate a benefit for patients with positive nodes treated with D2 gastrectomy without splenopancreatectomy. As nowadays also in western countries D2 procedure can be done safely with pancreas preserving technique and without preventive splenectomy, it has been suggested in several national guidelines as the recommended procedure for patients with AGC.

Problems faced by evidence-based medicine in evaluating lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer

Gastric cancer surgical management differs between Eastern Asia and Western countries. Extended lymphadenectomy (D2) is the standard of care in Japan and South Korea since decades, while the majority of United States patients receive at most a limited lymphadenectomy (D1). United States and Northern Europe are considered the scientific leaders in medicine and evidence-based procedures are the cornerstone of their clinical practice. However, surgeons in Eastern Asia are more experienced, as there are more new cases of gastric cancer in Japan (107898 in 2012) than in the entire European Union (81592), or in South Korea (31269) than in the entire United States (21155). For quite a long time evidence-based medicine (EBM) did not solve the question whether D2 improves long-term prognosis with respect to D1. Indeed, eastern surgeons were reluctant to perform D1 even in the frame of a clinical trial, as their patients had a very good prognosis after D2. Evidence-based surgical indications provided by Western trials were questioned, as surgical procedures could not be properly standardized. In the present study we analyzed indications about the optimal extension of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer according to current scientific literature (2008-2012) and surgical guidelines. We searched PubMed for papers using the key words “lymphadenectomy or D1 or D2” AND “gastric cancer” from 2008 to 2012. Moreover, we reviewed national guidelines for gastric cancer management. The support to D2 lymphadenectomy increased progressively from 2008 to 2012: since 2010 papers supporting D2 have achieved a higher overall impact factor than the other papers. Till 2011, D2 was the procedure of choice according to experts’ opinion, while three meta-analyses found no survival advantage after D2 with respect to D1. In 2012-2013, however, two meta-analyses reported that D2 improves prognosis with respect to D1. D2 lymphadenectomy was proposed as the standard of care for advanced gastric cancer by Japanese National Guidelines since 1981 and was adopted as the standard procedure by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer since the Nineties. D2 is now indicated as the standard of surgical treatment with curative intent by the German, British and ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO guidelines. At variance American NCCN guidelines recommend a D1⁺ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection. In conclusion, D2 lymphadenectomy, originally developed by Eastern surgeons, is now becoming the procedure of choice also in the West. In gastric cancer surgery EBM is lagging behind national guidelines, rather than preceding and orienting them. To eliminate this lag, EBM should value to a larger extent Eastern Asian literature and should evaluate not only the quality of the study design but also the quality of surgical procedures.

Lymph node, peritoneal and bone marrow micrometastases in gastric cancer: Their clinical significance

The 7th TNM classification clearly states that micrometastases detected by morphological techniques (HE stain and immunohistochemistry) should always be reported and calculated in the staging of the disease (pN1mi or M1), while patients in whom micrometastases are detected by non-morphological techniques (e.g., flow cytometry, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction) should still be classified as N0 or M0. In gastric cancer patients, micrometastases have been detected in lymph nodes, the peritoneal cavity and bone marrow. However, the clinical implications and/or their prognostic significance are still a matter of debate. Current literature suggests that lymph node micrometastases should be encountered for the loco-regional staging of the disease, while skip lymph node micrometastases should also be encountered in the total number of infiltrated lymph nodes. Peritoneal fluid cytology examination should be obligatorily performed in pT3 or pT4 tumors. A positive cytology classifies gastric cancer patients as stage IV. Although a curative resection is not precluded, these patients face an overall dismal prognosis. Whether patients with a positive cytology should be treated similarly to patients with macroscopic peritoneal recurrence should be evaluated further. Gastric cancer cells are detected with high incidence in the bone marrow. However, the published results make comparison of data between groups almost impossible due to severe methodological problems. If these methodological problems are overcome in the future, specific target therapies may be designed for specific groups of patients.

Management and outcome of gastric carcinoma in Zaria, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the world. The objective of this study was to present the clinical evaluation, treatment and outcome of 179 patients with gastric carcinoma in Zaria, Nigeria.

METHODS

Patients managed for histologically diagnosed gastric carcinoma were reviewed. The extent of surgical intervention was based on pre-operative and intra-operative staging balanced against the age and overall fitness of the patient. Mortality, morbidity and patient's survival were monitored.

RESULTS

There were 179 patients, with a male to female ratio of 1.4:1. Their mean age was 51 ± 6.3. Ten (5.6%) patients presented with early gastric cancer. Overall, 155(86.6%) patients had surgical intervention including gastric resection in 87 (56.1%). Of the gastrectomies , 28.7% were curative (R0). Postoperative complications were seen in 43(27.7%) patients. Postoperative mortality in 25(16.1%) patients was significantly associated with peritoneal metastasis (p<0.001), preoperative comorbidity (p<0.01) and age more than 60 years (p<0.03). The overall median survival was 13.6 months while 70.1% and 21.8% of patients that underwent gastrectomy survived for 1 and 5 years respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of gastric cancer should be based on a reasonable choice of operation that must consider not only the survival benefits but also the surgical risks and postoperative quality of life.