The issue of lymphadenectomy during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

Assessing safety and feasibility of 'pure' laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the West. Review article

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is reported to be the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Minimally invasive surgical treatment for gastric cancer is a very challenging approach which offers undoubtedly important advantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There is intense debate concerning the minimally invasive surgical approach for advanced gastric cancer especially in the Western population. A careful literature search was conducted in order to clarify the feasibility and safety of pure laparoscopic total gastrectomy in the West.

RESULTS

Herewith we aim to summarize the current scientific evidence assessing the feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the West. A lack of data from Western institutions regarding minimally invasive surgical approach for gastric cancer is yet a reality. Nevertheless, the laparoscopic procedure appears to provide satisfactory short-term oncologic outcomes and improved postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that future well-conducted trials on long-term results are necessary for Western patients in order safe conclusions to be reached regarding a potential definitive 'place' for laparoscopy in the curative gastric cancer treatment.

Advances in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported to be a safe alternative to both conventional laparoscopy and the open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. Currently, there are a limited number of published reports on this technique in the literature. We assessed the current status of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer and compared the operative outcomes, learning curves, and oncological outcome of the two approaches. Robotic gastrectomy offers benefits that include increased ease of performing D2 lymph node dissection and reduced blood loss compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, the operative time is longer, and robotic gastrectomy is more costly for the patients. Regarding to the operative and oncological outcomes, there appears to be no significant differences between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies after the surgeon overcomes the associated learning curves. Sharing the available knowledge regarding laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies could shorten these learning curves. For elder patients, minimally invasive surgery that decreases the postoperative recovery time should be considered the preferred treatment. Prospective randomized studies are required to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgeries for both early and advanced gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.

Targeted treatment of liver metastasis from gastric cancer using specific binding peptide

Gastric cancer ranks the first in China among all gastrointestinal cancers in terms of incidence, and liver metastasis is the leading cause of death for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a cytokine commonly chosen as the target for gene therapy against cancers. The specific binding peptide pd20 of gastric cancer cells with a high potential for liver metastasis was fused with human TNF to obtain the pd20-TNF gene using DNA recombinant technique. The expression of the fusion protein was induced and the protein was purified. In vitro activity test showed that the fusion protein greatly improved the membrane permeability of liver cells in nude mice with liver metastasis from gastric cancer. The tumor implantation experiment in nude mice showed that the fusion protein effectively mitigated the cancer lesions. The results provide important clues for developing the drugs for targeted treatment of liver metastasis from gastric cancer.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature.

METHODS

We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

RESULTS

In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy: a prospective study

BACKGROUD

The feasibility and safety of Hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy (HALG) have been seldom reported, also, benefits and outcomes are not defined.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive and in-depth comparative analysis of the general information, the intraoperative data and postoperative data in the Group HALG and the Group laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy (LAG).

RESULTS

The general data of HALG and LAG were no differences (P > 0.05); the blood loss and unexpected injury were similar(P > 0.05); the operative time, the incision length, the number of lymph nodes recovered, the rate of procedure conversion, the amount of postoperative complications, and the length of postoperative hospital stay of Group HALG were prior to that of Group LAG(P < 0.05); there were no differences for the pain score after day 2, the recovery time of intestinal function, the rate of reoperation, the 30-day hospital and readmission rate(P > 0.05); and there were significant linear correlations between the length of postoperative hospital stay and the operative time for both groups(P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LAG, HALG had similar features of being minimally invasive and radical in treating gastric cancers, and HALG was safer than LAG.

Treatment of gastric cancer

The authors focused on the current surgical treatment of resectable gastric cancer, and significance of peri- and post-operative chemo or chemoradiation. Gastric cancer is the 4^th most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Surgery remains the only curative therapy, while perioperative and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as chemoradiation, can improve outcome of resectable gastric cancer with extended lymph node dissection. More than half of radically resected gastric cancer patients relapse locally or with distant metastases, or receive the diagnosis of gastric cancer when tumor is disseminated; therefore, median survival rarely exceeds 12 mo, and 5-years survival is less than 10%. Cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, with addition of trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive patients, is the widely used treatment in stage IV patients fit for chemotherapy. Recent evidence supports the use of second-line chemotherapy after progression in patients with good performance status

[Robotic hepatobiliary and gastric surgery]

Hepatobiliary surgery is a challenging surgical subspecialty that requires highly specialized training and an adequate level of experience in order to be performed safely. As a result, minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery has been met with slower acceptance as compared to other subspecialties, with many surgeons in the field still reluctant about the approach. On the other hand, gastric surgery is a very popular field of surgery with an extensive amount of literature especially regarding open and laparoscopic surgery but not much about the robotic approach especially for oncological disease. Recent development of the robotic platform has provided a tool able to overcome many of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic hepatobiliary surgery. Augmented dexterity enabled by the endowristed movements, software filtration of the surgeon's movements, and high-definition three-dimensional vision provided by the stereoscopic camera, allow for steady and careful dissection of the liver hilum structures, as well as prompt and precise endosuturing in cases of intraoperative bleeding. These advantages have fostered many centers to widen the indications for minimally invasive hepatobiliary and gastric surgery, with encouraging initial results. As one of the surgical groups that has performed the largest number of robot-assisted procedures worldwide, we provide a review of the state of the art in minimally invasive robot-assisted hepatobiliary and gastric surgery.The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under supplemental).

Totally laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer is still controversial, particularly in terms of oncologic efficacy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for gastric cancer at a single Western institution.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a matched cohort study from a prospective gastric cancer database. Forty-one patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between June 2008 and January 2012 were matched with 41 patients undergoing open gastrectomy in the same time period. Patient pairing was done according to age, gender, type of gastrectomy (subtotal or total), and tumor stage via a randomized statistical method. The short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of the laparoscopic and open procedures were compared. A D2 lymph node dissection was performed in the majority of patients in both groups.

RESULTS

The two study groups were similar with respect to patient and tumor characteristics. Laparoscopic procedures were associated with a decreased blood loss (118.7 versus 312.4 mL, P<.005), incidence of surgery-unrelated complications (3 versus 9 patients, P<.05), and duration of hospital stay (8.1 versus 11.5 days, P<.05) but increased operative time for both subtotal (223.5 versus 158.2 minutes, P<.001) and total (298.1 versus 185.5 minutes, P<.001) gastrectomies. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes after D2 dissection was similar: 30.0 for laparoscopic and 29.7 for open patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, this study shows that the laparoscopic approach is a safe and oncologically adequate option for the treatment of gastric cancer, which compares favorably with open gastrectomy in short-term outcomes.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: evidence from randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) to determine whether LADG is an acceptable alternative to open distal gastrectomy (ODG).

BACKGROUND

LADG combined with less than D2 or D2 lymphadenectomy for EGC is still a controversial surgical intervention for its uncertain oncological safety and economic benefit. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis that included randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of LADG versus ODG to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of LADG in patients with EGC are equivalent to those of ODG.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database was performed. Eligible trials published between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010, were included in the study. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADEpro 3.2.2.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with 3411 participants were included in this study. The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in LADG was close to that retrieved in ODG (in the less than D2 resection: weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -5.78 to 2.19; P = 0.38; heterogeneity: P < 0.00001, I = 98%; and in the D2 resection: WMD = -1.53; 95% CI, -3.56 to 0.51; P = 0.14; heterogeneity: P = 0.23, I = 26%). The overall postoperative morbidity was significantly less in LADG than in ODG (relative risk = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74; P < 0.00001; heterogeneity: P = 0.94, I = 0%). LADG reduced the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative analgesic consumption, and hospital duration, without increasing the total hospitalization costs and cancer recurrence rate. The long-term survival rate of patients undergoing LADG was similar to that of patients undergoing ODG. However, LADG was still a technically dependent and time-consuming procedure. Conversion rate of LADG was 0% to 2.94%. The reported reasons for conversion were bleeding, adhesion, and safety resection margin requirement.

LIMITATIONS

: There were potential biases and significant heterogeneity in some clinical outcome measures in this study. Methodologically high-quality controlled clinical trials were sparse for this new surgical intervention. According to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, when assessing the safety and efficacy of LADG by comparing with those of ODG with the defined clinical outcomes in patients with EGC, the quality of the currently available clinical evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

LADG may be a technically feasible alternative for EGC when it is performed in experienced surgical centers in which patients undergoing LADG may benefit from the faster postoperative recovery. However, the currently available evidence cannot exclude the potential clinical benefits or harms, especially in the node-positive cases. Methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer produces oncologic outcomes similar to those for open resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy has gained acceptance as treatment for early gastric cancer. However, its role for advanced gastric cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy in the management of advanced gastric cancer for patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

This study reviewed consecutive patients treated with gastric cancer resection and adjuvant chemoradiation (45 Gy/25 with 5-fluorouracil [FU]-based chemotherapy), at a quaternary care comprehensive cancer center between 1 Jan 2000 and 30 Nov 2009. Of 203 patients, 21 were treated with laparoscopic gastrectomy. These patients were compared with patients who had open surgery and evaluated for overall survival, relapse-free survival, and site of first disease recurrence.

RESULTS

The 21 patients in the laparoscopic group had a median age of 61.3 years (range, 28.2-76.6 years) and a median follow-up period of 21.3 months (range, 6.7-50.4 months). The majority of the patients (71%) were men. Most of these patients had tumor node metastasis (TNM) v6 stage 2 (33%) or 3 (52%) disease as classified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). The demographic characteristics of the laparoscopic and open groups were similar. The incidence of recurrence was 38.1% (8/21) in the laparoscopic group and 36.8% (67/182) in the open group. In the laparoscopic group, the site of first recurrence was distant in three patients, peritoneal in four patients, and mixed in one patient (locoregional and distant). The recurrence patterns did not differ significantly between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. In the open group, recurrence was distant in 26 patients, peritoneal in 12 patients, and locoregional in 15 patients. At presentation, 14 patients showed a mixed pattern. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate was 58% (range, 50-66%), and the difference between the two groups by Gray's test was not significant (P = 0.32). The 3-year overall survival rate was 65.9% (range, 58-73%) and did not differ significantly between the two groups in the univariate (P = 0.92) or multivariate (P = 0.54) analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest that laparoscopic gastrectomy is an oncologically safe procedure for advanced gastric cancer with outcomes similar to those for open resection.

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.