Systematic review of D2 lymphadenectomy versus D2 with para-aortic nodal dissection for advanced gastric cancer

Global scientific trends in laparoscopy and gastric cancer in the 21st century: A bibliometric and visual mapping analysis

Aims

To use visual mapping and bibliometrics to analyze and summarize the valuable information on laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC) obtained in the last 20 years, so as to determine the research hotspots and trends in this field.

Methods

We screened all literature on laparoscopic surgery for GC in the Web of Science published from 2000 to 2022 and analyzed the research hotspots and trends in this field using VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 2796 reports from 61 countries and regions were selected. Japanese researchers published the most papers (n=946), followed by those from China (n=747) and South Korea (n=557). Papers from Japan also had the most citations (n=21,836). Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques published the most reports on laparoscopic surgery for GC (n=386) and also had the highest total number of citations (n=11,076), making this journal the most authoritative in this field. Among the institutions, researchers from Seoul National University in South Korea had the highest numbers of published papers and citations. The keywords of the articles could be divided into five categories: surgical methods for GC, short-term and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery, guiding role of laparoscopy in the treatment of advanced GC, diagnosis and treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC), and lymph node dissection. Keywords such as "laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy", "surgical outcomes", and "esophagogastric junction" have emerged recently, and relevant studies on laparoscopic surgery for adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction(AEG)have gradually become a hot topic and trend.

Conclusion

This study adopted bibliometric analysis to identify the current research hotspots and research trends in the field of laparoscopic surgery for GC. Five main research hotspots of laparoscopic surgery for GC were also identified. Laparoscopic surgery for AEG may become an important research focus in the future.

Surgery and Perioperative Management in Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Small-intestinal neuroendocrine tumors (SI-NETs) are the most prevalent small bowel neoplasms with an increasing frequency. In the multimodal management of SI-NETs, surgery plays a key role, either in curative intent, even if R0 resection is feasible in only 20% of patients due to advanced stage at diagnosis, or palliative intent. Surgeons must be informed about the specific surgical management of SI-NETs according to their hormonal secretion, their usual dissemination at the time of diagnosis and the need for bowel-preserving surgery to avoid short bowel syndrome. The aim of this paper is to review the surgical indications and techniques, and perioperative and postoperative management of SI-NETs.

Advances in para-aortic nodal dissection in gastric cancer surgery: A review of research progress over the last decade

Approximately 17%-40% of para-aortic lymph node (PAN) metastasis occurs in patients with advanced gastric cancer. As the third tier of lymphatic drainage of the stomach and the final station in front of the systemic circulation, PAN infiltration is defined as distant metastasis and plays a key role in the evaluation of the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer. Many clinical factors including tumor size ≥ 5 cm, pT3 or pT4 depth of tumor invasion, pN2 and pN3 stages, the macroscopic type of Borrmann III/IV, and the diffuse/mixed Lauren classification are indicators of PAN metastasis. Whether PAN dissection (PAND) should be performed on patients with or without the macroscopic PAN invasion remains unascertained, regardless of the numerous retrospective comparative studies reported on the improved prognosis over D2 alone. Another paradoxical result from many other studies showed no significant difference in the overall survival between these two lymphadenectomies. A phase II trial launched by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group indicated that two or three courses of S-1 and cisplatin preoperatively followed by radical surgery with D2 + PAND and postoperative S-1 is the current standard strategy for the treatment of patients with extensive lymph node metastasis, and this regimen could be substituted by a promising strategy with effective combination chemotherapy or suitable chemotherapy duration. This review focuses on the advances in radical gastrectomy plus PAND with or without chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Is There Any Role for D3 Lymphadenectomy in Gastric Cancer?

Although D2 constitutes the level of lymph node dissection which most surgical associations endorse in their treatment guidelines for gastric cancer more extended D3 dissection has also been attempted to improve oncologic outcomes. Existing literature pertinent with the provisional therapeutic impact of D3 lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer is studied in this mini review. Seven non-randomized comparisons, three randomized trials and five meta-analyses, almost exclusively of Asian origin, were identified and examined. D3 compared to D2 lymphadenectomy consistently and significantly proved to be associated with a “heavier” iatrogenic surgical trauma translated to more blood loss, prolonged operative time, higher relaparotomy rates and post-procedural surgical and non-surgical morbidity. Oddly mortality in most of these series did not reach statistical significance a fact probably attributed to Asian surgical expertise and/or methodologic drawbacks. All existing evidence and their meta-analyses, including a well-designed RCT from Japan (JCOG), failed to support a clear overall survival benefit linked to D3 dissection thus excluding the procedure from current treatment algorithms. The Italian GC research group, analyzing their database, proposed tumor histology, macroscopic type, size and location as selection criteria for D3 dissection provided surgical expertise is available. Recently, a phase II clinical trial from Japan reported a 3 -year survival rate of 59% in patients with clinically involved para-aortic nodes treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by D3 lymphadenectomy, rekindled the issue. Future multicenter randomized trials should test the extend and after effect of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer combined with modern chemotherapeutic agents in multimodal treatments.

Management of advanced gastric cancer: An overview of major findings from meta-analysis

This study aims to provide an overview of different treatment for advanced gastric cancer. In the present study, we systematically reviewed the major findings from relevant meta-analyses. A total of 54 relevant papers were searched via the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar databases. They were classified according to the mainstay treatment modalities such as surgery, chemotherapy and others. Primary outcomes including overall survival, response rate, disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, time-to failure, recurrence and safety were summarized. The recommendations and uncertainties regarding the treatment of advanced gastric cancer were also proposed. It was suggested that laparoscopic gastrectomy was a safe and technical alternative to open gastrectomy. Besides, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were thought to benefit the survival over surgery alone. And it was demonstrated in the study that targeted therapy like anti-angiogenic and anti-HER2 agents but anti-EGFR agent might have a significant survival benefit.

Polish Consensus on Treatment of Gastric Cancer; update 2017

The "Polish Research on Gastric Cancer" project has been continued since 1986. The main aim of this project, which is a multicenter and interdisciplinary research, is enhancing the treatment results of gastric cancer patients by developing and promoting the use of optimal methods for diagnosis and treatment, both surgical as well as combined. One of the more important achievements of the project is the development and publication of a document named "Polish Consensus on Treatment of Patients with Gastric Cancer", whose first version was published in 1998. Following versions were updated adequately to changing trends in the proceedings in patients with gastric cancer. A scientific symposium on "Polish Consensus on Treatment of Gastric Cancer - update 2016" was held in 3-4 June 2016 in Cracow. During the symposium a panel session was held during which all authors publicly presented the Consensus assumptions to be discussed further. Moreover, the already mentioned session was preceded by a correspondence as well as a working meeting in order to consolidate the position. It has to be underlined that the directions and guidelines included in the Consensus are not the arbitrarily assumed rules of conduct in a legal aspect and as such every doctor/team of doctors is entitled to make different decisions as long as they are beneficial to a patient with gastric cancer. The Consensus discusses as follows: a) recommended qualifications (stage of advancement, pathological, lymph node topography and the extent of lymphadenectomy, division of cancer of the gastroesophageal junction), b) rules for diagnostics including recommendations regarding endoscopic examination and clinical evaluation of the advancement stage, c) recommendations regarding surgical treatment (extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, tactics of proceedings in cancer of the gastroesophageal junction), d) recommendations regarding combined treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, e) place of endoscopic and less invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. This publication is a summary of the arrangements made in the panel session during the abovementioned scientific symposium in Cracow in 2016.

Recent insights in the therapeutic management of patients with gastric cancer

Gastric cancer remains frequent and one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. In this article, we aimed to comprehensively review recent insights in the therapeutic management of gastric cancer, with focus on the surgical and perioperative management of resectable forms, and the latest advances regarding advanced diseases. Surgical improvements comprise the use of laparoscopic surgery including staging laparoscopy, a better definition of nodal dissection, and the development of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The best individualized perioperative management should be assessed before curative-intent surgery for all patients and can consists in perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy or adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The optimal timing and sequence of chemotherapy and radiation therapy with respect to surgery should be further explored. Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis. Nevertheless, they can benefit from doublet or triplet chemotherapy combination, including trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients. Upon progression, second-line therapy can be considered in patients with good performance status. Although anti-HER2 (trastuzumab) and anti-VEGFR (ramucirumab) may yield survival benefit, anti-EGFR and anti-HGFR therapies have failed to improve outcomes. Nevertheless, combination regimens containing cytotoxic drugs and targeted therapies should be further evaluated; keeping in mind that gastric cancer biology is different between Asia and the Western countries.

Therapeutic role of systematic lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: A systematic review

The purpose of the current review was to examine whether systematic lymphadenectomy is safe and effective for treating early-stage endometrial cancer. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched during April 2014 to identify studies comparing the use of systematic lymphadenectomy and no systematic lymphadenectomy in parallel for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. A total of 13 eligible studies involving 51,155 patients were included in this review. The median overall survival (OS) rate at 5 years following lymphadenectomy was 90% (range, 73.1-98.3%) for patients undergoing the systematic procedure and 88.2% (range, 68-98.4%) for patients not undergoing the systematic procedure. For the two types of lymphadenectomy, OS has tended to improve over the last 20 years. The combined rate of disease-free and progression-free survival was higher in patients who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy, and the recurrence rate was lower. In particular, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with markedly higher OS than the non-systematic procedure for patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer when ≥11 lymph nodes were removed. Systematic lymphadenectomy demonstrates clinical benefit in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer and should thus be a standard treatment option. In conclusion, systematic lymphadenectomy leads to higher OS than no systematic lymphadenectomy in intermediate- and high-risk patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, particularly when the procedure removes ≥11 lymph nodes.

Surgical interventions for gastric cancer: a review of systematic reviews

AIM

To evaluate methodological quality and the extent of concordance among meta-analysis and/or systematic reviews on surgical interventions for gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the DARE database was conducted to identify the reviews comparing different surgical interventions for GC prior to April 2014. After applying included criteria, available data were summarized and appraised by the Oxman and Guyatt scale.

RESULTS

Fifty six reviews were included. Forty five reviews (80.4%) were well conducted, with scores of adapted Oxman and Guyatt scale ≥ 14. The reviews differed in criteria for avoiding bias and assessing the validity of the primary studies. Many primary studies displayed major methodological flaws, such as randomization, allocation concealment, and dropouts and withdrawals. According to the concordance assessment, laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) was superior to open gastrectomy, and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy was superior to open distal gastrectomy in short-term outcomes. However, the concordance regarding other surgical interventions, such as D1 vs. D2 lymphadenectomy, and robotic gastrectomy vs. LAG were absent.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews on surgical interventions for GC displayed relatively high methodological quality. The improvement of methodological quality and reporting was necessary for primary studies. The superiority of laparoscopic over open surgery was demonstrated. But concordance on other surgical interventions was rare, which needed more well-designed RCTs and systematic reviews.

[Volumes of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer surgery]

It is summarized an experience of 1528 resections for gastric cancer supplemented by D1-, D2-, D2,5- and D3-lymphadenectomy in 751, 241, 359 and 177 patients resrectively. Unconventional type D2.5 means D2-lymphodis section with additional lymphadenectomy along hepatoduodenal ligament and superior retropancreatic nodes as well as omental bursa removal with lymphodis section of esophageal opening crura. Analysis of immediate and remote results is presented. It is concluded that D3-lymphadenectomy is minimally preferred over D2.5-type in gastric cancer staging. D3-lymphodis section has the largest number of especially purulent and pancreatogenic postoperative complications. D2.5-lymphadenectomy significantly increases 5-year survival in comparison with D2-lymphodis section (from 51.2 ± 4.9 to 64.0 ± 4.1%; p<0.001) and may be chosen for any radical surgery for gastric cancer including early forms. Localized proximal tumors which are in distinctive for metastasis into hepatoduodenal ligament lymph nodes are exception. D3-lymphodis section did not impact on survival in comparison with D2,5-lymphadenectomy. Only patients with antral cancer after distal subtotal gastric resection had 5-year survival increasing on 8 % (from 60.6 ± 7.5 to 68.5 ± 6.3%).

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Lymphadenectomy extent and survival of patients with gastric carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of time-to-event data from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The extent of lymph node dissection in patients with resectable non-metastatic primary carcinoma of the stomach is still a controversial matter of debate, with special regard to its effect on survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the three main types of lymphadenectomy (D1, D2, and D3) for gastric cancer. Hazard ratio (HR) was considered the effect measure for both overall (OS), disease-specific (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The quality of the available evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs enrolling 2515 patients were eligible. The meta-analysis of four RCTs (n=1599) showed a significant impact of D2 versus D1 lymphadenectomy on DSS (summary HR=0.807, CI: 0.705-0.924, P=0.002), the corresponding number-to-treat being equal to ten. This effect remained clinically valuable even after adjustment for postoperative mortality. However, the quality of evidence was graded as moderate due to inconsistency issues. When OS and DFS were considered, the meta-analysis of respectively five (n=1653) and three RCTs (n=1332) found no significant difference between D2 and D1 lymph node dissection (summary HR=0.911, CI: 0.708-1.172, P=0.471, and summary HR=0.946, CI: 0.840-1.066, P=0.366, respectively). However, at subgroup analysis D2 type resulted superior to D1 type lymphadenectomy in terms of OS considering the two RCTs carried out in Eastern countries (summary HR=0.627, CI: 0.396-0.994, P=0.047). As regards the D3 vs D2 comparison, the meta-analysis of the three available RCTs (n=862) showed no significant impact of more extended lymphadenectomy on OS (summary HR=0.990, CI: 0.814-1.205, P=0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the superiority of D2 versus D1 lymphadenectomy in terms of survival benefit. However, this advantage is mainly limited to DSS, the level of evidence is moderate, and the interaction with other factors affecting patient survival (such as complementary medical therapy) remains to be elucidated.

[Lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer with laparotomic hook]

Gastric cancer is a common malignancy of surgical treatment. D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard procedure with curative intent. The authors report the use of laparotomic hook as an alternative technique for lymphadenectomy.

Lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a critical review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common neoplasms and an important cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Efforts to reduce its high mortality rates are currently focused on multidisciplinary management. However, surgery remains a cornerstone in the management of patients with resectable disease. There is still some controversy as to the extent of lymph node dissection for potentially curable stomach cancer. Surgeons in eastern countries favor more extensive lymph node dissection, whereas those in the West favor less extensive dissection. Thus, extent of lymph node dissection remains one of the most hotly discussed aspects of gastric surgery, particularly because most stomach cancers are now often comprehensively treated by adding some perioperative chemotherapy or chemo-radiation. We provide a critical review of lymph nodes dissection for gastric cancer with a particular focus on its benefits in a multimodal approach.

Clinical trials in gastric cancer and the future

Following the first successful gastric resection for gastric cancer by Theodor Billroth in 1881 surgery has made tremendous progress leading to improved surgical mortality and morbidity. However, while treatment of early gastric cancer is frequently curative, 5-year survival rates for advanced gastric cancer remain dismal despite the application of perioperative multimodal treatment concepts. In this article we will outline key clinical trials that have lead to an improvement in treatment of gastric cancer patients with specific emphasis on the last 20 years. We will then outline recent concepts and key clinical trials that are currently being conducted in the field. Finally we will outline open questions that remain to be elucidated in the future.

Gastric malignancy: surgical management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight the recent changes and development in the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. There is significant development in the field. However, issues like extent of resection, lymphadenectomy, and minimal access approach are still to be refined for clinical and oncological effectiveness and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The outcomes of surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma are improving due to several factors, including specialist unit settings, refinement of the surgical techniques, improved adequacy of lymphadenectomy and some other minor factors such as multidisciplinary team approach and the use of perioperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The most hot issue in the past year's literatures is the use of minimal access surgery for resection and lymphadenectomy. The trend of studies is supporting minimal access approach for limited, subtotal and even total gastrectomy.

SUMMARY

The outcomes of surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma are improving. Minimal access approach to treat gastric adenocarcinoma is evolving and continuing to have a substantial role in current surgical practice. The potential role of minimal access surgery, surgical resectional techniques, extent of lymphadenectomy and setting of specialized units and multidisciplinary team approach have stimulated an active research.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage was used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to access the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Central/CCTR) in The Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 10), including the Specialised Registers of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group; MEDLINE (via Pubmed, 1950 to October, 2010); EMBASE (1980 to October, 2010); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to October, 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy; irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From each trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the included studies, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay and initiation of soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group).There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); and initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 day, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and lead to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was "Very Low" for mortality and re-operations, and "Low" for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Lymph node dissection in curative gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the only potentially curative therapy for gastric cancer. However, the appropriate extent of lymph node dissection accompanied by gastrectomy for cancer remains controversial. In East Asian countries, especially in Japan and Korea, D2 lymph node dissection has been regularly performed as a standard procedure. In Western countries, surgeons perform gastrectomy with D1 dissection only because D2 is associated with high mortality and morbidity compared to those associated with D1 alone but does not improve the 5-year survival rate. However, more recent studies have demonstrated that western surgeons can be trained to perform D2 lymphadenectomies on western patients with a lower morbidity and mortality. When extensive D2 lymph node dissection is preformed safely, there may be some benefit to D2 dissection even in western countries. In this paper, we present an update on the current literature regarding the extent of lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer.