Outcome after emergency surgery in patients with a free perforation caused by gastric cancer

Intraoperative assessment of the curative potential to predict survival after gastric cancer resection: A national cohort study

BACKGROUND

The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of tumor resection following gastrectomy adds new information that could help clinicians and patients by predicting survival.

METHODS

All patients in Sweden undergoing gastric cancer resection between 2006 and 2018 were grouped according to a prospectively registered variable; the surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of surgery: curative, borderline curative, or palliative. Factors affecting group allocation were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression, while survival was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 2341 patients undergoing gastric cancer resection, 1547 (71%) were deemed curative, 340 (15%) borderline curative, and 314 (14%) palliative (140 missing assessments). Advanced stage increased the risk of borderline curative resection (Stage III, odds ratio (OR) = 6.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.92-9.31), as did emergency surgery OR = 3.31 (1.74-6.31) and blood loss >500 mL; OR = 1.63 (1.06-2.49). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion both decreased the risk of borderline curative resection, OR = 0.58 (0.39-0.87) and 0.57 (0.40-0.80), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the surgeon's assessment independently predicted worse survival for borderline curative (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.29-1.83) and palliative resections (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.45-2.19), compared to curative resections. The sensitivity of the surgeon's assessment of long-term survival was 96.7%. The PPV was 50.7% and the NPV was 92.1%.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of gastric cancer surgery may independently aid survival prediction and is analogous to prognostication by pathologic Staging. Advanced disease, emergency surgery, and a high intraoperative blood loss, increases the risk of a borderline curative or palliative resection. Conversely, neoadjuvant treatment and MDT discussion reduce the risk of borderline curative or palliative resection.

Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Case Report and Literature Review

Gastric cancer perforation is a rare but life-threatening complication of gastric cancer. We present the case of a 53-year-old male with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who presented to the emergency department with severe abdominal pain, was found to have an acute abdomen, and was eventually diagnosed with gastric perforation due to metastatic gastric cancer. This case highlights the challenges in diagnosing and managing perforated gastric cancer and discusses the surgical management options, including the use of laparoscopic techniques and the role of chemotherapy, particularly hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

The role of laparoscopic management in perforated gastric cancer

Purpose

Perforated gastric cancer is an extremely rare condition and usually presents in advanced stage with poor prognosis. Surgical strategies are still controversial regarding the extent to which complete resection or primary repair is performed and the application of laparoscopic techniques. We aim to determine the role of laparoscopic 2-stage approach in perforated gastric cancer.

Methods

Among 2,318 gastric cancers in Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital from January 1990 to December 2017, 20 patients with perforated gastric cancer were enrolled, and 5 patients underwent 2-stage gastrectomy consisting of primary closure on perforation followed by curative gastrectomy. Clinicopathological features, surgical outcomes, and survival analysis were evaluated.

Results

Two-stage approach for perforated gastric cancer was all performed by laparoscopic approach except 1 patient who needed paraaortic lymph node dissection (LND). Those were first treated on peritonitis with laparoscopic primary closure with or without Foley gastrostomy. Compared to 1-stage gastrectomy, more D2 LND was performed (60.0% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.260) and retrieved lymph nodes were significantly higher (median [range]: 17.0 [12.0–27.0] vs. 33.0 [26.5–43.5], P = 0.019]. Two patients of stage II and 3 patients of stage III were included in the 2-stage gastrectomy group. During the 38 months of median follow-up period, there were 8 and 1 recurrence among 1-stage and 2-stage gastrectomies, respectively. Except for 1 patient, 4 other 2-stage patients survived around 5 years without recurrence (5-year disease-free survival, 80%).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic 2-stage surgery for perforated gastric cancer is safe and might increase the curability of gastrectomy with extended LND.

Perforated gastric cancer: a critical appraisal

Gastric cancer perforation is a life-threatening condition that accounts for less than 5% of all gastric cancer patients and typically requires emergency surgery. However, preoperative diagnosis is difficult and management has a dual purpose: to treat peritonitis and to achieve a curative resection. The optimal surgical strategy is still unclear and prognosis remains poor. A search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane) using terms such as "perforated gastric cancer", "perforated gastric cancer and surgery", "perforated gastric tumour" and "gastric cancer perforated". Case reports, other reviews, non-english written papers and papers written before 2010 were excluded. Eight articles published between 2010 and 2020 matched the inclusion criteria for this review. Perforated gastric cancer was more prevalent in elderly males. Distal stomach was most frequently involved. Preoperative diagnosis was uncommon. Mortality rates ranged from 2 to 46%. Patients able to receive an R0 resection demonstrated better long-term survival compared with patients who had simple closure procedures. Laparoscopic procedure was mentioned only in one study. In an emergency situation, curative RO resection should always be offered in patients without multiple adverse factors. A surgical strategy using laparoscopic local repair as first step of surgery to resolve the peritonitis followed by a radical open or laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy could be considered. A balance between emergency and oncological needs should drive the surgical choice on a case by case basis.

Optimal treatment and complications of patients with the perforated upper gastrointestinal tract

PURPOSE

The perforation of the upper gastrointestinal tract is still associated with a high risk of complications and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the optimal treatment and post-treatment complications for this condition.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study conducted between 2010 and 2019. We analyzed 50 patients with intraperitoneal free air caused by peptic ulcer (44 cases) or cancer (six cases).

RESULTS

All patients initially received either conservative therapy (n = 7) or surgery (n = 43). The nonsurgically cured patients were significantly younger and had mild peritonitis and also had a shorter hospital stay. Two patients were converted to surgery due to worsening symptoms, and one of them was elderly and had a long perforation-to-treatment time. Regarding postoperative complications, patients with Grade II-V (n = 21) were significantly older and had a poorer physical status, longer perforation-to-surgery time, and higher preoperative CRP and lactate than those with Grade 0-I (n = 24). Multivariable analyses identified elevated preoperative lactate as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications. The patients with noncurative surgery for perforated advanced gastric cancer all died within 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration should be given to the nonsurgical indications in elderly and delayed treatment patients and the postoperative outcomes of patients with preoperatively elevated lactate levels.

Treatment of Gastric Cancer Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic: The West is More Vulnerable

The outbreak of the COVID-19 is currently the biggest international concern. Treatment of gastric cancer (GC) patients in the pandemic era with high hospital burden and under severe oncological/surgical resource constraints should implicate a need for resource re-allocation with a new "pandemic" GC treatment algorithm. The neoadjuvant/perioperative (radio-)chemotherapy is applied in the majority of advanced GC cases with poor postoperative therapy compliance. In the East, radical surgery is frequently used in the first instance, with adjuvant chemotherapy reserved for patients with a high risk of recurrence. Moreover, the elderly population might be effectively treated by surgery alone, thus saving oncological resources for younger people who need a more aggressive approach. In this framework, prioritization is a key concept based on the severity of symptoms and the need for urgent (surgical) intervention. High-risk and marginally effective surgery should be replaced with definitive radio- and/or chemotherapy. The pandemic framework to provide optimal care for GC patients must be based on multidisciplinary decision-making and include all anti-cancer treatment options: surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy. The priority and staffing dictate adherence to the new algorithm. We believe that these priorities may improve the delivery of care to all, including elderly GC patients.

Chemotherapy-induced necrotising tumour lysis and perforation of a huge gastric cancer simulating emphysematous pancreatitis

A 56-year-old man was diagnosed to have a huge gastric cancer extending from the lesser curvature of the stomach to the pancreas with multiple hepatic and peritoneal metastases. Two days after completing chemotherapy with cisplatin plus high dose leucovorin and fluorouracil, drastic necrotising tumour lysis led to gastric perforation and septic shock most likely due to bacterial peritonitis. The image of tumour lysis looked like an emphysematous pancreatitis. Afterwards, immunohistochemical study of the tumour specimen confirmed moderate positivity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and absence of Bcl-2 expression. The incomplete expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and total deficiency of Bcl-2 are considered to be the main underlying causes of such extraordinary chemosensitivity and so severe a tumour lysis phenomenon. Pre-emptive intensive survey of possible biomarkers of chemosensitivity is thus highly recommended upon treating a massive gastric cancer.

Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background: Although gastric carcinoma is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer, optimal treatment of perforated cancer remains debated. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted according to the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An electronic systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) by matching the terms "perforated gastric cancer," "gastric cancer perforated," "perforation AND gastric cancer," and "perforated gastric tumor." Results: Fifteen studies published between 1995 and 2018 and including 964 patients matched the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. There were 4 publications from Japan, 3 from Turkey, and 1 from China, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Nepal, Serbia, South Korea, and Taiwan, respectively. The sample size of the individual studies ranged from 8 to 514 patients. Perforated gastric carcinoma was rare and more prevalent in elderly males, preoperative diagnosis was uncommon, and the distal stomach was most frequently involved. Mortality was 11.4% and 1.9%, respectively, in one-stage versus two-stage gastrectomy (P = .010). Curative treatment by omental patch repair and staged gastrectomy yielded acceptable 5-year survival rates. There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate and pattern between perforated and nonperforated gastric cancer if a curative operation was performed. Use of laparoscopy was mentioned only in one study. Conclusions: Future studies should evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery and clarify the indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and extensive peritoneal lavage protocols to decrease gastric cancer cell shed in the surgical field and increase long-term survival.

Drainage of a Subphrenic Abscess Followed by Two-Stage Gastrectomy and Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Perforated Gastric Carcinoma: A Case Report

Patient: Male, 65

Final Diagnosis: Gastric carcinoma

Symptoms: Abdominal and/or epigastric pain

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Surgery

Surgical outcome evaluation of perforated gastric cancer: from the aspects of both acute care surgery and surgical oncology

BACKGROUND

Perforated gastric cancer (PGC) is a rare condition of gastric cancer (GC). In this study, we sought to assess the outcome of PGC from the aspects of both acute care surgery and surgical oncology at a single institute, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH).

METHODS

From 1997 to 2013, 6864 patients were diagnosed with GC and 2738 were diagnosed with gastroduodenal perforation at CGMH. In total, 29 patients with PGC were identified. Immediate surgical and long-term oncologic outcomes were evaluated after an appropriate matching process was performed.

RESULTS

The immediate surgical outcome of PGC, i.e., the hospital mortality rate within 30 d after surgery, did not significantly differ from that of non-cancer related gastroduodenal perforation. The long-term oncologic outcome, with matching by age, gender, year of surgery and AJCC 7th stage grouping, also did not significantly differ from that of GC without perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive surgical treatment, including an initial emergency procedure for containing peritonitis and radical surgery for GC, may benefit PGC patients in terms of both the immediate and oncologic outcomes.

Gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma resulting in a spontaneous gastric perforation: a case report and review of the literature

Background

Gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma (GHAC) is an atypical form of gastric cancer (GC) that has similar tissue morphology to hepatocellular carcinoma and frequently produces alpha-fetoprotein. We present an exceedingly rare case of GHAC resulting in a spontaneous gastric perforation.

Case presentation

A 61-year-old man presented at our institution complaining of abdominal and back pain. A computed tomography scan revealed a spontaneous gastric perforation with a solitary liver tumor and lymph node swelling. Following a diagnosis of advanced-stage GC with a gastric perforation, perforative peritonitis, multiple lymph node metastases, and a solitary metastasis of the lateral segment of the liver, the patient underwent distal gastrectomy. Histopathology of the resected specimen revealed that the tumor cells were arranged in a hepatoid pattern. On immunohistochemical staining, the tumor cells were positive for alpha-fetoprotein and Sal-like protein 4. Thus, the patient was diagnosed with GHAC. Hepatic resection of the solitary liver metastasis was performed. However, recurrence occurred and the patient achieved complete response following tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil-based chemotherapy.

Conclusions

GHAC is a highly malignant histological subtype of GC. We reported on an extremely rare case of GHAC resulting in a spontaneous gastric perforation and reviewed the literature, including epidemiological data, treatment regimens, and the association between GHAC and alpha-fetoprotein-producing GC.

Perforated Carcinoma in the Gastric Remnant: A Case of Conservative Treatment Prior to Successful Curative R0 Resection

An 80-year-old man who had undergone distal gastrectomy and Billroth-II gastrojejunostomy 38 years previously, for a benign gastric ulcer, was diagnosed with remnant gastric cancer based on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings. He presented at our emergency department with acute-onset epigastric pain due to perforated remnant gastric cancer. Conservative medical management was selected, including nasogastric tube insertion, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors, because his peritonitis was limited to his epigastrium and his general condition was stable. Twenty-one days after the perforation occurred, curative total remnant gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy were performed. Adhesion between the lateral segment of the liver and the dissected lesser curvature of the gastric remnant may have contributed to the peritonitis in this case, which was limited to the epigastrium. This is the first report of perforated remnant gastric cancer in which conservative treatment was effective prior to curative resection. The protocol reported here may be of use to other clinicians who may encounter this clinical entity in their practices.

The best surgical approach for perforated gastric cancer: one-stage vs. two-stage gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgery for perforated gastric cancer has a dual purpose: treating life-threatening peritonitis and curing gastric cancer. An emergent one-stage gastrectomy may place an undue burden on patients with a poor general status and could impair long-term survival even if the gastric malignancy is curable. A two-stage gastrectomy, in which the initial treatment of peritonitis is followed by elective gastrectomy, can accomplish both desired purposes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 514 Japanese cases of perforated gastric cancer. 376 patients underwent a one-stage gastrectomy and 54 patients underwent a two-stage gastrectomy. We evaluated patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and survival rates in both groups.

RESULTS

The two-stage gastrectomy group saw a 78.4% rate of curative R0 resection and 1.9% hospital mortality rate, while corresponding rates in the one-stage gastrectomy group were 50 and 11.4%, respectively. Among cases in which curative R0 resection was performed, there was no significant difference in overall survival between 136 one-stage gastrostomies and 40 two-stage gastrostomies. In a multivariate analysis, curative R0 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 2.937, p = 0.001] and depth of tumor invasion (HR 1.179, p = 0.016) were identified as independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether patients underwent a one-stage or two-stage gastrectomy, curative R0 resection improved survival in patients with perforated gastric cancer. When curative R0 resection cannot be performed in the initial treatment phase due to diffuse peritonitis, non-curative and palliative gastrectomy should be avoided, and a two-stage gastrectomy should be planned following peritonitis recovery and detailed examinations.