Omental preservation versus omentectomy in curative-intent gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Swedish population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Omentectomy has traditionally been performed in gastric cancer surgery, but omental preservation has become increasingly common. It is unclear whether omentectomy leads to additional survival benefit compared with omental preservation. This nationwide population-based cohort study aimed to assess survival and surgical outcomes comparing omental preservation to omentectomy in curative-intent gastrectomy.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the Swedish National Registry for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer with inclusion between 2006 and 2022. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed by a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, clinical T and N stage, type of gastrectomy, surgical approach, extent of lymphadenectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery year and regional cancer centre. Secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes including tumour-free resection margins, lymph node yield and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1615 patients were included, 517 (32.0%) underwent gastrectomy with omental preservation, and 1098 (68.0%) underwent gastrectomy with omentectomy. Overall survival after omental preservation was similar compared with omentectomy in the multivariable Cox model (HR 1.00, 95% c.i. 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.967). Omental preservation also had similar surgical outcomes including lymph node yield and postoperative morbidity rate, compared with omentectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Omental preservation was similar to omentectomy in terms of overall survival and surgical outcomes. The results suggest that omentectomy can safely be omitted in curative-intent gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Omentum preservation versus complete omentectomy in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (OMEGA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Potentially curative therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer consists of gastrectomy, usually in combination with perioperative chemotherapy. An oncological resection includes a radical (R0) gastrectomy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy; generally, a total omentectomy is also performed, to ensure the removal of possible microscopic disease. However, the omentum functions as a regulator of regional immune responses to prevent infections and prevents adhesions which could lead to bowel obstructions. Evidence supporting a survival benefit of routine complete omentectomy during gastrectomy is lacking.

METHODS

OMEGA is a randomized controlled, open, parallel, non-inferiority, multicenter trial. Eligible patients are operable (ASA < 4) and have resectable (≦ cT4aN3bM0) primary gastric cancer. Patients will be 1:1 randomized between (sub)total gastrectomy with omentum preservation distal of the gastroepiploic vessels versus complete omentectomy. For a power of 80%, the target sample size is 654 patients. The primary objective is to investigate whether omentum preservation in gastrectomy for cancer is non-inferior to complete omentectomy in terms of 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints include intra- and postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, readmission rate, quality of life, disease-free survival, and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

The OMEGA trial investigates if omentum preservation during gastrectomy for gastric cancer is non-inferior to complete omentectomy in terms of 3-year overall survival, with non-inferiority being determined based on results from both the intention-to-treat and the per-protocol analyses. The OMEGA trial will elucidate whether routine complete omentectomy could be omitted, potentially reducing overtreatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05180864. Registered on 6th January 2022.

Comparative assessment of the capability of machine learning-based radiomic models for predicting omental metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer

The study aims to investigate the predictive capability of machine learning algorithms for omental metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) and to compare the performance metrics of various machine learning predictive models. A retrospective collection of 478 pathologically confirmed LAGC patients was undertaken, encompassing both clinical features and arterial phase computed tomography images. Radiomic features were extracted using 3D Slicer software. Clinical and radiomic features were further filtered through lasso regression. Selected clinical and radiomic features were used to construct omental metastasis predictive models using support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), and logistic regression (LR). The models' performance metrics included accuracy, area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). In the training cohort, the RF predictive model surpassed LR, SVM, DT, and KNN in terms of accuracy, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV. Compared to the other four predictive models, the RF model significantly improved PPV. In the test cohort, all five machine learning predictive models exhibited lower PPVs. The DT model demonstrated the most significant variation in performance metrics relative to the other models, with a sensitivity of 0.231 and specificity of 0.990. The LR-based predictive model had the lowest PPV at 0.210, compared to the other four models. In the external validation cohort, the performance metrics of the predictive models were generally consistent with those in the test cohort. The LR-based model for predicting omental metastasis exhibited a lower PPV. Among the machine learning algorithms, the RF predictive model demonstrated higher accuracy and improved PPV relative to LR, SVM, KNN, and DT models.

Does total omentectomy prevent peritoneal seeding for advanced gastric cancer with serosal invasion?

BACKGROUND

Radical gastrectomy is composed of gastrectomy, lymph node dissection, and omentectomy. Total omentectomy (TO) is expected to reduce the incidence of peritoneal recurrence. We aimed to investigate the necessity of TO for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) with serosal invasion.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 310 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with TO and 93 patients who underwent partial omentectomy (PO) for gastric cancer with serosal invasion between August, 2005 and December, 2017. Finally, 91 patients in the PO group and 91 in the TO group were enrolled based on a 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis. We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes, including 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative complications. Recurrence sites showed similar patterns in both groups, including peritoneal recurrence (PO vs. TO, 18.7% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.188). Five-year overall survival was better in the PO group (p = 0.018), while 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.066).

CONCLUSION

TO might not be an essential part of preventing peritoneal recurrence for AGC with serosal invasion. PO could be considered a radical gastrectomy for T4a gastric cancer.

Safety and Efficacy of Partial Omentectomy in Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for pT3-T4a Stage Gastric Cancer

Purpose

Partial omentectomy (PO) has been gradually applied in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC); however, its efficacy remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of PO in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for pT3-T4a stage GC.

Patients and Methods

From June 2019 to May 2021, 108 patients with pT3 or pT4a stage GC who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy were retrospectively included and divided into the PO (n=58) and total omentectomy (TO, n=50) groups. The surgical outcomes, recurrence patterns and postoperative 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the PO and TO groups.

Results

The PO group showed a shorter operation time than the TO group (183.9±21.6 vs 197.6±22.7 min, p=0.002). Less intraoperative blood loss (155.3±113.0 vs 178.8±154.4 mL, p=0.336) and intraoperative complications (5.1% vs 12.0%, p=0.298) were also observed in the PO group than in the TO group, but the difference was not significant. The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) and metastatic LNs, postoperative hospital stays and postoperative complications in the two groups were comparable (p>0.05). Moreover, the postoperative overall recurrence rates (25.9% vs 26.0%, p=0.987) and the 2-year OS rates (63.8% vs 65.4%, p=0.437) in the PO and TO groups were also comparable. TO was not an independent prognostic factor for GC patients (HR=0.806, p=0.443).

Conclusion

In laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, PO could provide better surgical outcomes and comparable oncological outcomes compared to TO for patients with pT3-T4a stage GC, suggesting that PO may be an acceptable surgical procedure for these patients.

The concept of developmental anatomy: the greater omentum should be resected in right-sided colon cancer?

BACKGROUND

The greater omentum is derived from the foregut, and the right hemicolon is derived from the midgut based on developmental anatomy. This study aimed to investigate whether the greater omentum should be resected in laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision based on developmental anatomy for right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 183 consecutive patients with right-sided colon cancer were recruited in this study between February 2020 and July 2022. Ninety-eight patients underwent standard laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision surgery (CME group). The presence of isolated tumor cells and micrometastases was detected in resected greater omentum by the HE staining and immunohistochemistry analysis. Based on developmental anatomy, laparoscopic CME surgery with greater omentum preservation (DACME group) was proposed and performed on 85 right-sided colon cancer patients. To overcome selection bias, we performed a 1:1 match between two groups using four variables: age, sex, BMI, and ASA scores.

RESULTS

No isolated tumor cells and micrometastases were found in the resected greater omentum specimen in the CME group. After the propensity score, 81 pairs were balanced and analyzed. Patients in the DACME group showed shorter operative time (194.9 ± 16.4 min vs.201.5 ± 11.5 min, p = 0.002), less blood loss (23.5 ± 24.7 ml vs.33.6 ± 26.3 ml, p = 0.013), and the shorter hospital stays (9.6 ± 1.7 days vs.10.3 ± 2.0 days, p = 0.010) compared with patients in the CME group. In addition, patients in the DACME group had a lower incidence of postoperative complications (4.9% vs.14.8%, p = 0.035) than patients in the CME group.

CONCLUSION

The greater omentum should be preserved during right-sided colon cancer surgery, laparoscopic CME surgery based on developmental anatomy is technically safe and feasible for right-sided colon cancer.

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.

Is Total Omentectomy Mandatory in T3 and T4a Gastric Cancer for Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy?

BACKGROUND

Despite the lack of strong evidence, total omentectomy (TO) remains the recommended procedure for gastric cancer (GC) for T3 or deeper tumors. Partial omentectomy (PO) has recently become a preferred procedure owing to its simplicity during laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, the oncological role of PO needs to be elucidated.

METHODS

Overall, 341 patients with T3 or T4a GC who had undergone LDG between 2009 and 2016 were divided into TO (n = 167) and PO (n = 174) groups. Propensity matching was performed with respect to covariance age, sex, T and N stage, tumor size, and degree of tumor differentiation. Clinicopathological characteristics and long-term follow-up data were analyzed for both groups.

RESULTS

After successful propensity matching, both groups included 107 patients. In a matched cohort, no significant difference in clinicopathologic features and short-term surgical outcomes was observed between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS; p = 0.201) and peritoneal seeding-free survival (PSFS; p = 0.094) was observed. However, tumor recurrence as peritoneal metastasis occurred in 5 (4.7%) patients in the PO group and 13 (12.1%) patients in the TO group. In Cox proportional hazards analysis, omentectomy was not identified as a significant factor for RFS, PSFS, and overall survival; however, advanced N and T4a stage were considered significant factors for RFS and PSFS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PO may be adopted during the LDG of T3 or T4a GC without definite gross serosal exposure. More large-scale evidence or prospective study is recommended.

Indications and technical aspects of proximal gastrectomy

According to the World Health Organization, gastric cancer is the fifth most common type of tumor, and is the third most common cause of tumor-associated death. Although gastric cancer incidence rates have decreased in the past few decades, the prevalence of proximal gastric cancer has been steadily rising in developed countries. Techniques regarding the improvement of treatment options must thus be developed. This can be achieved through incorporating both a wider use of endoscopic surgery (endoscopic mucosal resection-EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection-ESD) and a review of applied surgical interventions. Even though there is no single international consensus available, the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) recommends proximal gastrectomy with D1+ lymphadenectomy in early gastric tumors. Despite recommendations from Asian guidelines and the short term outcomes of the KLASS 05 trial, surgical treatments in Western countries still rely on total gastrectomy. This is mostly due to technical and oncological challenges regarding surgical interventions in a proximal gastrectomy. However, the residual stomach after a proximal gastrectomy has been shown to diminish the incidence of dumping syndrome and anemia, and even improve postoperative quality of life (QoL). Therefore, it is necessary to define the place of proximal gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancers.

Pattern of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer: a side-study of the multicenter LOGICA-trial

BACKGROUND

The relation between gastric cancer characteristics and lymph node (LN) metastatic patterns is not fully clear, especially following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This study analyzed nodal metastatic patterns.

METHODS

Individual LN stations were analyzed for all patients from the LOGICA-trial, a Dutch multicenter randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus open D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The pattern of metastases per LN station was related to tumor location, cT-stage, Lauren classification and NAC.

RESULTS

Between 2015-2018, 212 patients underwent D2-gastrectomy, of whom 158 (75%) received NAC. LN metastases were present in 120 patients (57%). Proximal tumors metastasized predominantly to proximal LN stations (no. 1, 2, 7 and 9; p < 0.05), and distal tumors to distal LN stations (no. 5, 6 and 8; OR > 1, p > 0.05). However, distal tumors also metastasized to proximal LN stations, and vice versa. Despite NAC, each LN station (no. 1-9, 11 and 12a) showed metastases, regardless of tumor location, cT-stage, histological subtype and NAC treatment, including station 12a for cT1N0-tumors. LN metastases were present more frequently in diffuse versus intestinal tumors (66% versus 52%; p = 0,048), but not for cT3-4- versus cT1-2-stage (59% versus 51%; p = 0.259). However, the pattern of LN metastases was similar for these subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of lymphadenectomy cannot be reduced after NAC for gastric cancer. Although the pattern of LN metastases is related to tumor location, all LN stations contained metastases regardless of tumor location, cT-stage (including cT1N0-tumors), histological subtype, or NAC treatment. Therefore, D2-lymphadenectomy should be routinely performed during gastrectomy in Western patients.

Gastrectomy with or without Complete Omentectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Surgery remains the only possible curative treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Peritoneal metastases are estimated to occur in approximately 55–60% AGC patients. Greater omentum is the most common metastatic area in AGC. At present, omentectomy alone or bursectomy are usually carried out during gastric cancer surgery. We performed a meta-analysis in order to evaluate long-term and short-term outcomes among AGC patients, who have undergone radical gastrectomy with or without complete omentectomy (CO). Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4. Results: The eight included studies covered an approximately 20 years long study period (2000–2018). Almost all included studies were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries. Meta-analysis indicated gastrectomy without CO as significantly associated with longer 3-year (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90–0.98, p = 0.005) and 5-year overall survivals (OS) (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88–0.98, p = 0.007). Moreover, we found longer operative time (MD: 24.00, 95% CI: −0.45–48.45, p = 0.05) and higher estimated blood loss (MD: 194.76, 95% CI: 96.40–293.13, p = 0.0001) in CO group. Conclusions: Non-complete omentectomy (NCO) group had a statistically greater rate in 3-year and 5-year OSs than the CO group, while the CO group had significantly longer operative time and higher estimated blood loss than the NCO group. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may turn out of paramount importance in confirming our results.

Occult Omental Metastasis in Gastric Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis of Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes

Negine PaulIntroduction  Traditionally, the concept of complete omentectomy during gastric resection for cancer was based on lymphatic drainage and the occurrence of occult omental metastasis (OM). However, recent emerging evidence has challenged this concept of complete omentectomy. We, therefore, aim to find the incidence and risk factors of occult OM and also evaluate the outcome of patients with and without such metastasis. Methods  This is a single institutional, retrospective study of patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative radical gastrectomy for a period of 3 years (April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2019). A complete omentectomy was performed in all patients and the omentum and nodal stations were dissected in the resected specimen and sent for pathological analysis. Clinical and epidemiological data were collected from the hospital patient database and analysis was done. Results  A total of 185 patients have been included in the study, with a mean age of 53.84 years. Twenty of the 185 patients had OM (10.8%). Age, sex, location of the tumor, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not statistically significant in predicting OM. However, tumor size and tumor depth were found to have a significant association with OM. The occurrence of OM was more likely to be associated with disease recurrence, especially in the peritoneum. The mean overall survival was 38.15 months (±3.33 SD), whereas patients with OM had lower survival, 23.31 months (±7.79 SD), with a p -value of 0.012. Conclusion  OM was not encountered in T1 and T2 gastric cancers and the incidence of OM in T3 and T4 tumors was approximately 12.7%. Therefore, complete omentectomy may be omitted in early T1/T2 tumors. OM was associated with poor prognosis, increased peritoneal recurrence, and decreased overall survival, in spite of a complete omentectomy, and may serve as a prognostic indicator for disease recurrence and overall survival.

[Topographic and anatomical landmarks for endoscopic navigation in surgery for complicated gastric cancer]

OBJECTIVE

To develop an algorithm for sequential visual navigation and imaging of the most permanent topographic and anatomical landmarks for safe laparoscopic surgery of complicated gastric cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed 42 laparoscopic surgeries for complicated locally advanced gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Anatomical navigational landmarks and technical aspects of their safe isolation during laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer are recommended.

CONCLUSION

The topographic-anatomical navigation system based on the most constant anatomical landmarks ensures safe laparoscopic interventions for complicated locally advanced gastric cancer.

Comparison of Survival and Safety Between Total Omentectomy and Partial Omentectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The greater omentum can limit abdominal inflammation and act as a protective cushion, but it is always involved in dissemination of gastric cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the survival and safety between total omentectomy and partial omentectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods: Two investigators independently conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Cochrane Library ranging from January 2000 to November 2020. The pooled odds ratio (ORs) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to assess perioperative and survival parameters.

Results: A total of 2,031 patients in 11 studies (574 patients in the partial omentectomy group and 1,457 patients in the total omentectomy group) were included. The results found shorter operation time (WMD = −25.584; P = 0.000) and less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −47.301; P = 0.050) in the partial omentectomy group, compared to total omentectomy. There were no significant differences in terms of incidence of complications (OR = 0.770; P = 0.164), blood transfusions rates (OR = 0.269; P = 0.161), time to first flatus (WMD = 0.160; P = 0.345), hospital stay (WMD = −1.258; P = 0.087), and number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 1.265; P = 0.662). For the disease-free survival (OR = 0.80; P = 0.381) and overall survival, there were no statistical differences between the two procedures.

Conclusions: The partial omentectomy could reduce operation time and trended to decrease intraoperative blood loss. And the survival in patients with partial omentectomy seemed to be comparable to that of patients with total omentectomy.

Risk Assessment and Preventive Treatment for Peritoneal Recurrence Following Radical Resection for Gastric Cancer

As the most common recurrence pattern after radical gastric cancer resection, peritoneal recurrence is a major cause of mortality, which affects the prognosis of patients to a very large extent. Peritoneal status and risk of peritoneal recurrence can be evaluated by peritoneal lavage cytology, photodynamic diagnosis, imaging examination, and pathologic analysis. Presently, there is no standard approach for preventing peritoneal recurrence after radical surgery; furthermore, controversies exist regarding the effects of some preventive methods. Among the preventive methods, there are high expectations about the potential of preoperative therapy, surgical skill improvement, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and postoperative treatment to reduce the incidence of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy. This study aimed to analyze the results of previous studies on the risk assessment and preventive methods of peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy in recent years. We hope to provide references for better approach to clinical diagnosis and treatment strategies for peritoneal recurrence after radical gastrectomy.

Gastrectomy with omentum preservation versus gastrectomy with omentectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Omentectomy has been traditionally a part of standard radical gastrectomy. Its clinical benefit for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains controversial. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of gastrectomy with omentum preservation (GOP) on survival, recurrence, surgical outcomes and postoperative complications by comparing with gastrectomy with omentum resection (GOR).

METHODS

Original studies comparing GOP with GOR in LAGC were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 1879 patients were analyzed. Compared with GOR, GOP achieved significantly better overall survival (HR = 0.75 [0.60, 0.95], P = 0.01), with similar relapse-free survival (HR = 0.84 [0.68, 1.03], P = 0.10). The two groups had similar total recurrence rate (OR = 0.86 [0.68, 1.08], P = 0.19) and no significant differences in rates of peritoneal, hematogenous, locoregional or distant lymph node recurrences. GOP had significantly less blood loss (MD = -83 [-139, -28] ml, P = 0.003) and tended to have shorter operation time (MD = -28 [-58, 2] min, P = 0.06), with similar harvested number of lymph nodes (MD = -0.4 [-2.6, 1.8], P = 0.70). The incidences of total all grade and major complications were similar in GOP and GOR (all grade: 31.8% vs. 30.3%, OR = 1.08 [0.79, 1.46], P = 0.64; major: 9.2% vs. 10.1%, OR = 1.14 [0.55, 2.34], P = 0.73). There were no significant differences in incidences of complication or postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Omentum preservation did not affect curability or survival in LAGC. These findings require validation in randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes.

Gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Omentectomy is conventionally performed in the procedure of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, the clinical value and importance of omentectomy remain unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the benefits and safety of gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing complete omentectomy with omentum preservation or partial omentectomy. Primary outcomes were overall survival, relapse-free survival, and incidences of recurrence and complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the total length of operation and the amount of blood loss.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 3,561 patients were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between omentectomy and omentum preservation in terms of the 5-year overall survival (risk ratio [RR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-1.01), 5-year relapse free survival (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.03), incidence of recurrence in the peritoneum or other visceral organs (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.80-1.60 and RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78-1.45, respectively), and incidence of complications (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.89-1.50). Moreover, omentum preservation significantly reduced the total length of operation (mean difference [MD] 25.70, 95% CI: 3.23-48.17) and the amount of blood loss (MD: 56.29, 95% CI: 14.02-98.56).

CONCLUSION

Omentectomy may not be necessary and can be omitted during gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Is omentectomy necessary in the treatment of benign or malignant abdominal pathologies? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The omentum is an organ that is easily sacrificed during abdominal surgery. The scope of omentectomy and whether a routine omentectomy should be performed are still unknown.

AIM

To review the literature in order to determine the physiological functions of the omentum and the roles it plays in pathological events in order to reveal the necessity for removal and preservation of the omentum.

METHODS

A clinical review of the English language literature based on the MEDLINE (PubMed) database was conducted using the keywords: “abdomen”, “gastrointestinal”, “tumor”, “inflammation”, “omental flap”, “metastasis”, “omentum”, and “omentectomy”. In addition, reports were also identified by systematically reviewing all references in retrieved papers.

RESULTS

The omentum functions as a natural barrier in areas where pathological processes occur in the abdominal cavity. The omentum limits and controls inflammatory and infectious pathologies that occur in the abdomen. It also aids in treatment due to its cellular functions including lymphatic drainage and phagocytosis. It shows similar behavior in tumors, but it cannot cope with increasing tumor burden. The stage of the disease changes due to the tumor mass it tries to control. Therefore, it is considered an indicator of poor prognosis. Due to this feature, the omentum is one of the first organs to be sacrificed during surgical procedures. However, there are many unknowns regarding the role and efficacy of the omentum in cancer.

CONCLUSION

The omentum is a unique organ that limits and controls inflammatory processes, foreign masses, and lesions that develop in the abdominal cavity. Omental flaps can be used in all anatomical areas, including the thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and extremities. The omentum is an organ that deserves the title of the abdominal policeman. It is generally accepted that the omentum should be removed in cases where there is tumor invasion. However, the positive or negative contribution of omental resection in the treatment of abdominal pathologies should be questioned.

Complete Mesogastric Excisions Involving Anatomically Based Concepts and Embryological-Based Surgeries: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges

Surgeries for gastrointestinal tract malignancies are based on the paradigm that we should remove the tumour together with its lymphatic drainage in one block. This concept was initially proposed in rectal surgery and called a total mesorectal excision. This procedure gained much interest and has improved oncological results in rectal cancer surgery. The same idea for mesogastric and complete mesogastric excisions was proposed but, because of the complexity of the gastric mesentery, it has not become a standard technique. In this review, we analysed anatomical and embryological factors, proposed technical aspects of this operation and incorporated the available initial results of this concept. We also discussed analogies to other gastrointestinal organs, as well as challenges to this concept.

Efficacy of Omentum-Preserving Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Complete omentectomy is considered to be essential in the radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC), but its clinical benefit remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of omentum-preserving gastrectomy (OPG) for patients with GC.

Methods

Studies comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of OPG and gastrectomy with complete omentectomy (GCO) for GC up to March 2021 were systematically searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. A pooled analysis was performed for the available data regarding the baseline features, surgical and oncological outcomes. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Quality evaluation and publication bias were also conducted.

Results

Nine studies with a total of 3335 patients (1372 in the OPG group and 1963 in the GCO group) undergoing gastrectomy were included. In the pooled analysis, the baseline data in two groups were all comparable (p > 0.05). However, the OPG group was associated with shorter operative time (MD = −18.67, 95% CI = −31.42 to −5.91, P = 0.004) and less intraoperative blood loss (MD = −38.09, 95% CI = −53.78 to −22.41, P < 0.00001) than the GCO group. However, the number of dissected lymph nodes (MD = 2.16, 95% CI = −0.61 to 4.93, P = 0.13), postoperative complications (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.15, p = 0.47), overall recurrence rate (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.06, p = 0.14), peritoneal recurrence rate (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.29, p = 0.60), 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.86 to 2.27, p = 0.18), and 5-year RFS rate (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.55, p = 0.12) of the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

OPG might be an oncologically safe procedure with better surgical outcomes for patients with GC than GCO. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this benefit.

Efficiency of complete omentectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer: a meta‑analysis and systematic review

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of complete omentectomy (CO) in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical research that compared CO with non-complete omentectomy (NCO). These articles were published prior to April 2021. Overall survival (OS) rates, relapse-free survival (RFS) rates, recurrence rates, operation times, estimates of blood loss, numbers of harvested lymph nodes, complications, and lengths of hospital stays were compared using relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs). RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Nine studies that included 3329 patients (1960 in the CO group) and 1369 in the NCO group comprised the analysis. The meta-analysis showed that CO was associated with a decreased 3-year OS rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.90–0.98, P = 0.005) and 5-year OS rate (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.88–0.98, P = 0.007). However, it was not associated with the 3-year RFS rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90–1.04, P = 0.44), 5-year RFS (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.90–1.06, P = 0.60), or recurrence rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.95–1.45, P = 0.15) compared to the NCO group. For surgical-related outcomes, significant heterogeneity existed between the studies. Compared to the NCO group, CO was found to be associated with significantly more estimated blood loss (WMD = 250.90, 95% CI 105.90–396.28, P = 0.0007) and less harvested lymph nodes (WMD = − 3.59, 95% CI − 6.88, − 0.29, P = 0.03). Although, there was no significant difference in the surgical time (WMD = 15.93, 95% CI − 0.21, 32.07, P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the rates of overall (P = 0.79) and major complications (P = 0.90), or the lengths of hospital stays (P = 0.11) between the two groups.

Conclusions

Based on the available evidence, CO is not superior to NCO in terms of survival. CO is not recommended as a routine surgery for gastric cancer. Future well-designed high-quality RCTs are warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01921-3.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate omentum-preserving gastrectomy for patients with T1-T3 gastric cancer

Although complete omentectomy is traditionally performed in patients with gastric cancer as part of radical gastrectomy to ensure the elimination of micrometastases, the prognostic value of omentectomy during gastrectomy remains unclear. Retrospective studies have shown that the incidence of metastases in the greater omentum is very low in T1-T3 gastric cancer. Thus radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and preservation of the greater omentum may be a proper curative treatment for gastric cancer patients with T1-T3 tumors. The aim of this article is to describe the design and rationale for this prospective, randomized controlled DRAGON-05 trial, conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of omentum-preserving gastrectomy for patients with T1-T3 gastric cancer. Clinical trial registration: ChiCTR2000040045 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Omentectomy Does Not Affect the Postoperative Outcome of Patients With Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the influence of omentectomy on postoperative outcomes in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

BACKGROUND

Although several meta-analyses have investigated the influence of bursectomy on postoperative outcomes in patients with LAGC, no meta-analyses have explored the influence of omentectomy on postoperative outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2020 to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes between patients with LAGC who did and did not undergo omentectomy. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective studies involving a total of 2658 patients with LAGC who underwent surgery were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3 propensity score matching (PSM) studies demonstrated that the 5-y recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was 72.9% (314/431) in patients with LAGC who did not undergo omentectomy, whereas it was 70.3% (303/431) in those who did. The results revealed no significant difference in 5-y RFS between groups (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13; P = 0.41; I² = 0%). Two PSM studies also revealed no significant difference in 5-y overall survival (OS) between groups (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.13; P = 0.18; I² = 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these meta-analyses show that omentectomy had no significant influence on 5-y OS, especially 5-y RFS, in patients with LAGC.

Omentum preservation as an oncologically comparable and surgically superior alternative to total omentectomy during radical gastrectomy for T3-T4 gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Total omentectomy has conventionally been performed and has been regarded as standard procedure in radical gastrectomy for cancer. However, omentum preservation is the preferred procedure during minimally invasive surgery, without sufficient evidence of oncological safety, especially for T3-T4 gastric cancer.

METHOD

A total of 3,510 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for T3-T4 gastric cancer between January 2003 and December 2015 were reviewed, retrospectively. After propensity score matching, 225 patients in the omentum preservation group were compared with 225 patients in the total omentectomy group. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival.

RESULTS

The omentum preservation group showed significantly shorter operation time (P = .001) and less blood loss (P = .004) than the total omentectomy group. Shorter operation time was also observed with both open and minimally invasive approaches (P < .001 and P = .007, respectively). The 5-year overall survival rates were 75.4% for the omentum preservation group and 72.6% for the total omentectomy group (log-rank P = .06; hazard ratio 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.01]). The 5-year relapse-free survival was higher in the omentum preservation group (73.8%) than in the total omentectomy group (66.1%), without statistical significance (log-rank P = .09; hazard ratio 0.74 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.06]).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the surgical approach, omentum preservation provided comparable oncologic outcomes with better surgical outcomes, suggesting that this could be an acceptable alternative to total omentectomy for T3-T4 gastric cancer. These findings warrant further investigation in randomized clinical trials.

Long-term outcomes of omentum-preserving versus resecting gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer with propensity score analysis

Omentectomy is conducted for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients as radical surgery without an adequate discussion of the effect. This study was conducted to reveal the impact of omentum-preserving gastrectomy on postoperative outcomes. AGC patients with cT3 and 4 disease who underwent total or distal gastrectomy with R0 resection were identified retrospectively. They were divided into the omentum-preserved group (OPG) and the omentum-resected group (ORG) and matched with propensity score matching with multiple imputation for missing values. Three-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) were compared, and the first recurrence site and complications were analysed. The numbers of eligible patients were 94 in the OPG and 144 in the ORG, and after matching, the number was 73 in each group. No significant difference was found in the 3-year OS rate (OPG: 78.9 vs. ORG: 78.9, P = 0.54) or the 3-year RFS rate (OPG: 77.8 vs. ORG: 68.2, P = 0.24). The proportions of peritoneal carcinomatosis and peritoneal dissemination as the first recurrence site and the rate and severity of complications were similar in the two groups. Omentectomy is not required for radical gastrectomy for AGC.

Comparative Effectiveness of Lymphadenectomy Strategies During Curative Resection for Gastric Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term effectiveness of three lymphadenectomy strategies in patients with gastric cancer. We hypothesized that, compared with the traditional standard (D2) lymph node dissection strategy, the less aggressive modified standard (mD2) lymphadenectomy may offer superior effectiveness due to reduced operative morbidity and comparable long-term recurrence-free survival.

METHODS

A Markov decision analysis model was created to simulate 5-year outcomes across three lymphadenectomy approaches for gastric cancer: limited regional (D1), traditional standard (D2), and modified standard (mD2). The primary outcome was discounted quality-adjusted life-years (dQALY). Model variable estimates were derived from outcomes data and quality of life estimates published in Europe and America within the last 15 years. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for clinically relevant variables.

RESULTS

The mD2 lymphadenectomy offered 3.03 dQALY over 5 years, outperforming D2 (2.62 dQALY) and D1 (2.37 dQALY). Monte Carlo simulations indicated that both mD2 and D2 lymph node dissection strategies outperformed D1 in 94.9% of simulations. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the mD2 approach would be less effective than D2 if the perioperative mortality rate of mD2 was greater than 6.9% (3.2% baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Across modern series, the modified standard mD2 lymphadenectomy is an effective alternative to the traditional D2 lymphadenectomy for patients with gastric cancer. A D1-limited regional lymphadenectomy is not recommended during gastric cancer resection.

Normal and Abnormal Postoperative Imaging Findings after Gastric Oncologic and Bariatric Surgery

Surgical resection remains the primary choice of treatment and the only potentially curative option for gastric carcinoma, and is increasingly performed laparoscopically. Gastric resection represents a challenging procedure, with a significant morbidity and non-negligible postoperative mortality. The interpretation of imaging after gastric surgery can be challenging due to significant modifications of the normal anatomy. After the surgery, the familiarity with expected imaging appearances is crucial for diagnosis and appropriate management of potentially life-threatening complications in patients who underwent gastric surgery. We review various surgical techniques used in gastric surgery and describe fluoroscopic and cross-sectional imaging appearances of normal postoperative anatomic changes as well as early and late complications after gastric surgery.

Omental adipocytes promote peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer through the CXCL2-VEGFA axis

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) patients frequently develop peritoneal metastasis; however, the underlying mechanism remains unknown. We hypothesised that omental adipocytes (OmAd) trigger GC cells towards malignant activity to induce peritoneal metastasis.

Methods

We analysed interactions among human GC cells, endothelial cells and OmAd using a 3D co-culture system. We also employed a multipronged animal study, including subcutaneous and orthotopic tumours, and humanised omental adipose tissue models. Urinary levels of CXCL2 were analysed in human GC patients with and without peritoneal metastasis.

Results

Conditioned media derived from OmAd (OmAd-CM) promoted the proliferation, migration and capacity to induce angiogenesis of GC cells through AKT phosphorylation and VEGFA overexpression, whereas silencing CXCL2 in OmAd cancelled OmAd-induced effects. In an orthotopic tumour model using SCID mice, omentectomy suppressed GC growth and peritoneal dissemination, and reduced serum levels of CXCL2. OmAd promoted GC growth in a humanised omental adipose tissue model using NSG mice, but silencing CXCL2 in OmAd cancelled OmAd-induced tumour growth. Finally, urinary levels of CXCL2 were significantly higher in GC patients with peritoneal metastasis than in those without.

Conclusion

Omental adipocytes trigger GC cells to an aggressive phenotype through CXCL2 secretion, which induces angiogenesis followed by cell growth and peritoneal metastasis.

Gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for cT3–4 gastric cancer: a multicentre cohort study

Background

Omentectomy is performed widely for locally advanced gastric cancer to prevent disease recurrence. However, its clinical benefit is unknown.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared the outcome of gastrectomy with preservation of the omentum (GPO) and gastrectomy with resection of the omentum (GRO) among patients with cT3–T4 gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy between 2006 and 2012 in one of five participating institutions. A consensus conference identified 28 variables potentially associated with outcome after gastrectomy for the estimation of propensity scores, and propensity score matching (PSM) was undertaken to control for possible confounders. Postoperative surgical outcomes, overall survival and disease recurrence were compared between GPO and GRO.

Results

A total of 1758 patients were identified, of whom 526 remained after PSM, 263 in each group. Median follow-up was 4·9 (i.q.r. 3·1–5·9) years in the GRO group and 5·0 (2·5–6·8) years in the GPO group. The incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade III or more was significantly higher in the GRO group (17·5 versus 10·3 per cent; P = 0·016). Five-year overall survival rates were 77·1 per cent in the GRO group and 79·4 per cent in the GPO group (P = 0·749). There were no significant differences in recurrence rate or pattern of recurrence between the groups.

Conclusion

Overall survival and disease recurrence were comparable in patients with cT3–4 gastric cancer who underwent GPO or GRO.

Global updates in the treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Part 2: perioperative management, multimodal therapies, new technologies, standardization of the surgical treatment and educational aspects

Gastric cancer is the fifth malignancy and the third cause of cancer death worldwide, according to the global cancer statistics presented in 2018. Its definition and staging have been revised in the eight edition of the AJCC/TNM classification, which took effect in 2018. Novel molecular classifications for GC have been recently established and the process of translating these classifications into clinical practice is ongoing. The cornerstone of GC treatment is surgical, in a context of multimodal therapy. Surgical treatment is being standardized, and is evolving according to new anatomical concepts and to the recent technological developments. This is leading to a massive improvement in the use of mini-invasive techniques. Mini-invasive techniques aim to be equivalent to open surgery from an oncologic point of view, with better short-term outcomes. The persecution of better short-term outcomes also includes the optimization of the perioperative management, which is being implemented on large scale according to the enhanced recovery after surgery principles. In the era of precision medicine, multimodal treatment is also evolving. The long-time-awaited results of many trials investigating the role for preoperative and postoperative management have been published, changing the clinical practice. Novel investigations focused both on traditional chemotherapeutic regimens and targeted therapies are currently ongoing. Modern platforms increase the possibility for further standardization of the different treatments, promote the use of big data and open new possibilities for surgical learning. This systematic review in two parts assesses all the current updates in GC treatment.

Global updates in the treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Part 1: staging, classification and surgical treatment

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth malignancy and the third cause of cancer death worldwide, according to the global cancer statistics presented in 2018. Its definition and staging have been revised in the eight edition of the AJCC/TNM classification, which took effect in 2018. Novel molecular classifications for GC have been recently established and the process of translating these classifications into clinical practice is ongoing. The cornerstone of GC treatment is surgical, in a context of multimodal therapy. Surgical treatment is being standardized, and is evolving according to new anatomical concepts and to the recent technological developments. This is leading to a massive improvement in the use of mini-invasive techniques. Mini-invasive techniques aim to be equivalent to open surgery from an oncologic point of view, with better short-term outcomes. The persecution of better short-term outcomes also includes the optimization of the perioperative management, which is being implemented on large scale according to the enhanced recovery after surgery principles. In the era of precision medicine, multimodal treatment is also evolving. The long-time-awaited results of many trials investigating the role for preoperative and postoperative management have been published, changing the clinical practice. Novel investigations focused both on traditional chemotherapeutic regimens and targeted therapies are currently ongoing. Modern platforms increase the possibility for further standardization of the different treatments, promote the use of big data, and open new possibilities for surgical learning. This systematic review in two parts assesses all the current updates in GC treatment.

Consensus statement of the Hellenic and Cypriot Gastric Cancer Study Group on the diagnosis, staging and management of gastric cancer

Gastric Cancer epidemics have changed over recent decades, declining in incidence, shifting from distal to proximal location, transforming from intestinal to diffuse histology. Novel chemotherapeutic agents combined with modern surgical operations hardly changed overall disease related survival. This may be attributed to a substantial inherent geographical variation of disease genetics, but also to a failure to standardize and implement treatment protocols in clinical practice. To overcome these drawbacks in Greece and Cyprus, a Gastric Cancer Study Group under the auspices of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology (HeSMO) and Gastrointestinal Cancer Study Group (GIC-SG) merged their efforts to produce a consensus considering ethnic parameters of healthcare system and the international proposals as well. Utilizing structured meetings of experts, a consensus was reached. To achieve further consensus, statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology by invited multidisciplinary national and international experts. Sentences were considered of high or low consensus if they were voted by ≥ 80%, or < 80%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. Forty-five statements were developed and voted by 71 experts. The median rate of abstention per statement was 9.9% (range: 0-53.5%). At the end of the process, one statement was rejected, another revised, and all the remaining achieved a high consensus. Forty-four recommendations covering all aspects of the management of gastric cancer and concise treatment algorithms are proposed by the Hellenic and Cypriot Gastric Cancer Study Group. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and individualization are emphasized.

Esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas: individualization of resection with special considerations for Siewert type II, and Nishi types EG, E=G and GE cancers

For Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II), or similar tumors classified as Nishi EG, E=G, GE, the type of surgical resection and reconstruction should be individualized. Criteria for decision making mainly focus on the oral extent of esophageal infiltration, the cT and cN category and the functional status of the patient. For cT1/cT2 adenocarcinomas, which are non-poorly cohesive, intestinal type of Lauren Grading 1 or 2 without clinical signs of lymph node metastasis at the distal stomach, a limited transhiatal proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction is recommended. For advanced adenocarcinomas, subtotal esophageal and proximal gastric resection with gastric pull-up or distal esophageal resection with total gastrectomy and esophagojejunostomy are competing procedures. Criteria for choosing the appropriate type of surgery are discussed.

Significance of Omental Infiltration in Gastric Cancer Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Stomach cancer is a curative disease in early stages. The optimal extent and approach for gastric resection are still evolving.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, we examined the value, as well as, the predictors of omental disease spread, retrospectively, in a group of patients with gastric cancer who attended the Oncology Center, Mansoura University, in the period between January 2006 and April 2017.

RESULTS

Nodal metastasis, especially heavy disease (N₂ and beyond), and advanced stage are predictors of the presence of omental disease. However, neither overall nor disease-free survival is affected by omental infiltration.

CONCLUSION

Omental resection will continue being an integral part of gastric resection, but the level of omental cutting needs further studies.

A rapid and simple method for visualizing milky spots in large fixed tissue samples of the human greater omentum

Milky spots are unique lymphoid structures in the greater omentum that participate in both immune homeostasis of the peritoneal cavity and formation of omental metastases. We developed a rapid and simple staining method to enable macro- or stereomicroscopic identification of these miniscule structures in large samples of fixed human greater omentum. By immersing approximately 6 × 4 cm samples of omental tissue in hematoxylin, these samples could be evaluated quickly for the presence of milky spots. We used an alum hematoxylin variant containing 1 g hematoxylin, 50 g aluminium ammonium sulfate, 0.2 g sodium iodide, 1 g citric acid and 50 g chloral hydrate. This staining method enabled us to determine the number, location, dimensions and topographical relation of milky spots to other structures. Our method also facilitates isolation of milky spots for further investigation. Hematoxylin imparts a blue color to the milky spots, which remains in place during further processing for paraffin embedding. This enabled easy recognition of milky spots during transfer through various solutions and permitted selection of relevant paraffin slides prior to additional staining.

TOTAL OMENTECTOMY IN GASTRIC CANCER SURGERY: IS IT ALWAYS NECESSARY?

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, total omentectomy is performed along with gastric resection and extended lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer (GC) surgery. However, solid evidences regarding its oncologic benefit is still scarce.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of metastatic omental lymph nodes (LN) in patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for GC, as well as its risk factors and patients' outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive patients submitted to D2/modified D2 gastrectomy due to gastric adenocarcinoma from March 2009 to April 2016 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective collected database.

RESULTS

Of 284 patients included, five (1.8%) patients had metastatic omental LN (one: pT3N3bM0; two: pT4aN3bM0; one: pT4aN2M0 and one pT4bN3bM0). Four of them deceased and one was under palliative chemotherapy due relapse. LN metastases in the greater omentum significantly correlated with tumor's size (p=0.018), N stage (p<0.001), clinical stage (p=0.022), venous invasion growth (p=0.003), recurrence (p=0.006), site of recurrence (peritoneum: p=0.008; liver: p=0.023; ovary: p=0.035) and death (p=0.008).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of metastatic omental LN of patients undergoing radical gastrectomy due to GC is extremely low. Total omentectomy may be avoided in tumors smaller than 5.25 cm and T1/T2 tumors. However, the presence of lymph node metastases in the greater omentum is associated with recurrence in the peritoneum, liver, ovary and death.

Do all the European surgeons perform the same D2? The need of D2 audit in Europe

Although D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard of care for radical intent surgical treatment of gastric cancer, the real compliance with D2 dissection in Europe is still unknown. The aim of the present study is to analyze the variation in lymph-node harvesting reported after D2 dissection in European series and to present a European project aiming at evaluating the real compliance with D2 lymphadenectomy. A PubMed search for papers using the key words "D2 lymphadenectomy" and "gastric cancer" from 2008 to 2017 was undertaken. Only studies by European authors in English language reporting the number of retrieved lymph nodes after D2 lymphadenectomy were included. The results of literature review were descriptively reported. The literature survey yielded 16 studies: 2 RCTs, 3 observational multicentre studies, and 11 observational monocentric studies. A large variability was found in the number of retrieved nodes, which, overall, was the lowest in the surgical series from Eastern Europe (16.6 and 19.9 in the Lithuanian and Hungarian series, respectively) and the highest in an Italian RCT. The within-study variability was also quite high, especially in multicentre RCTs and observational studies. Sample size tended to have a larger effect on the variability of lymph nodes retrieved than on its actual value. However, in both cases, the relation was not significant, due to the low number of studies considered. There is a large variability in the number of retrieved nodes after D2 dissection in European series. This reflects, at least partly, different approaches to D2 lymphadenectomy by European surgeons and may be responsible of the different outcomes observed in patients with gastric cancer across Europe. Therefore, there is the need to standardize the practice of D2 gastrectomy in Europe and to define possible variations of D2 procedures according to tumour's characteristics.

Loss of ARID1A expression is associated with poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer

Deletion of the frequently mutated AT-rich interacting domain-containing protein 1A (ARID1A), an SWI/SNF subunit, is associated with poor prognosis in various tumors. This study observed and analyzed ARID1A expression and its correlation with prognosis in gastric carcinoma. Postoperative sections of 98 patients with primary gastric cancer and 40 patients with gastric benign lesions were examined by immunohistochemistry. ARID1A deficiency was observed in 19.39% of gastric cancer tissues, 4.08% of matched paracancerous tissues, and 2.5% of normal gastric mucosa tissues. ARID1A expression was significantly down-regulated in gastric cancer tissues compared with paracancerous tissues (P = .001) and normal gastric mucosa tissues (P = .011). ARID1A deletion significantly correlated with tumor size (P = .022), lymph node metastasis (P = .030), and tumor differentiation (P = .009). In the 90 gastric cancer tissues with tumor stages II and III, the clinical outcome of the ARID1A-negative patients was significantly poorer than that of the ARID1A-positive patients (P = .005). Univariate analysis revealed that tumor invasion depth (P = .025), stage (P = .032), poor differentiation (P = .046), lymph node metastasis (P = .038), and ARID1A expression (P = .023) were significantly related to the overall survival of gastric cancer patients. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that tumor invasion depth (P = .029) and ARID1A expression (P = .031) were independent factors that indicate poor prognosis. In conclusion, the loss of ARID1A expression in gastric cancer patients significantly correlated with poor survival.