Dealing with the gray zones in the management of gastric cancer: The consensus statement of the İstanbul Group

Current standards of surgical management of gastric cancer: an appraisal

PURPOSE

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and portends a grim prognosis due to a lack of appreciable improvement in 5-year survival. We aimed to analyze the available literature and summarize the current standards of surgical care for curative and palliative intent treatment of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database for studies on the management of GC.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection is an acceptable treatment option for T1a tumors. The role of optimal resection margin for GC remains unclear. D2 lymph node dissection remains the standard of care with splenectomy needed selectively for splenic hilum involvement. A distal pancreatic resection should be avoided. The advantage of bursectomy and omentectomy in GC surgery is not clear. Multi-visceral resection may be considered for locally advanced GC in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive approaches are non-inferior to open surgery. Surgery should be abandoned prior even in metastatic GC within the frame of multimodal therapy approach.

CONCLUSION

Various trials have conclusively shown improved patient outcomes when well-established surgical standards are followed.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare short-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for gastric cancer in the Turkish population carrying both European and Asian characteristics.

Material and Methods: Short-term (30-day) outcomes of the patients undergoing minimally invasive and open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenec- tomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2013 and December 2017 were compared. Patient demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, short-term perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were evaluated between the study groups.

Results: There were a total of 179 patients. Fifty (28%) patients underwent minimally invasive [laparoscopic (n= 19) and robotic (n= 31)] and 129 (72%) patients underwent open surgery. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index and ASA scores. While operative time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (p< 0.0001), length of hospital stay and operative morbidity were com- parable between the groups.

Conclusion: While both laparoscopic and robotic surgery is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes in selected patients, long operating time and increased cost are the major drawbacks of the robotic technique preventing its widespread use.

Totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the outcomes of pure minimally invasive techniques of radical gastrectomy are scarce. We aimed to compare short-term post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Between December 2013 and March 2018, robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy performed in two centres were included. Both groups were compared with respect to perioperative short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included in the study. Anticoagulant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were higher in the robotic group (p = 0.02, p = 0.02). There were conversions in the laparoscopy group whereas no conversions occurred in the robotic group (p = 0.052). Operating time in the robotic group was longer (p = 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes in the laparoscopic group was higher (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Totally robotic technique with the da Vinci Xi^® robotic system provides similar short-term results compared to laparoscopic surgery in radical gastrectomy.