Impact of minimally invasive gastrectomy on use of and time to adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma

Effect of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy on Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemotherapy offers survival benefit to patients with gastric cancer. Only 50-65% of patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and gastrectomy are able to receive adjuvant therapy. It is optimal to start adjuvant therapy within 8 weeks after gastrectomy. We compared the rate of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) between minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) and open gastrectomy (OG).

METHOD

Retrospectively, we analyzed patients who underwent gastrectomy within a multi-hospital university-based health system (2019-2022). Data on patient demographics, comorbid conditions, operative approach, and postoperative outcomes were assessed with univariate analysis and multivariable analysis (MVA) to determine the association with RIOT.

RESULTS

Among 87 eligible patients, 33 underwent MIG and 54 underwent OG. There were no differences in demographics, performance status, comorbid conditions, or type of gastrectomy between the two groups. MIG patients were significantly more likely to RIOT compared with OG patients (87.9% vs. 63%, p = 0.003), with 73.1% of MIG patients starting adjuvant therapy within 8 weeks compared with 53.1% of OG patients. Factors associated with higher odds of RIOT included MIG and age <65 years, while major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) was associated with lower odds of RIOT. On MVA, MIG was independently associated with higher odds of RIOT compared with OG (odds ratio 6.05, 95% confidence interval 1.47-24.78, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The minimally invasive approach may benefit patients undergoing gastrectomy, irrespective of the extent of gastric resection for adenocarcinoma. MIG is associated with a higher likelihood of (1) RIOT and (2) starting adjuvant therapy within the optimal time period after gastrectomy.

Impact of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy on the Completion Rate of the Perioperative Chemotherapy Regimen in Gastric Cancer: A Swedish Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Omission of prescheduled chemotherapy following surgery for gastric cancer is a frequent clinical problem. This study examined whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) had a positive impact on compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with open (OG).

METHODS

Patients with cT2-4aN0-3M0 adenocarcinoma treated with gastrectomy and perioperative chemotherapy between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Swedish national register. Additional information regarding chemotherapy was retrieved from medical records. Regression models were used to investigate the association between surgical approach and the following outcomes: initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, modification, and time interval from surgery to start of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients were included (121 OG and 126 LG, conversion rate 11%), of which 71.3% had performance status ECOG 0 and 77.7% clinical stage II/III. In total, 86.2% of patients started adjuvant chemotherapy, with no significant difference between the groups (LG 88.1% vs OG 84.3%, p = 0.5). Reduction of chemotherapy occurred in 37.4% of patients and was similar between groups (LG 39.4% vs OG 35.1%, p = 0.6), as was the time interval from surgery. In multivariable analysis, LG was not associated with the probability of starting adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.36, p = 0.4) or the need for reduction (OR 1.29, p = 0.4). Conversely, major complications had a significant, negative impact on both outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study demonstrated a high rate of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation after curative intended surgery for gastric cancer. A beneficial effect of LG compared with OG on the completion rate was not evident.

Comparison of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Gastrectomy for Pathologically Serosa-Invasive (pT4a) Advanced Gastric Cancer-Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background: We aimed to clarify the operative feasibility and oncological efficacy of a laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for pT4a gastric cancer through comparison with open gastrectomy (OG). Materials and Methods: We compared surgical and oncological outcomes in 178 patients with pT4a gastric cancer who underwent LG or OG between 2002 and 2016; the background was adjusted using propensity score matching. Results: After score matching, 45 patients were included in each group. The LG group had a significantly longer operation time (277 minutes versus 175 minutes, P < .001) and lower estimated blood loss (50 mL versus 280 mL, P < .001). The total number of dissected lymph nodes did not differ between groups (46 versus 38, P = .119); however, the number of dissected suprapancreatic lymph nodes was significantly higher in the LG group (11 versus 7.5, P = .011). Postoperative morbidity rates did not differ between groups. Postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LG group (7 days versus 13 days, P < .01), whereas overall survival, disease-free survival, and cancer recurrence rates and patterns were similar between groups. Conclusions: LG for pT4a gastric cancer has feasible and acceptable outcomes compared with OG.

Surgical considerations and outcomes of minimally invasive approaches for gastric cancer resection

Despite high mortality rates from gastric cancer, surgical management remains critical for curative potential. Optimal outcomes of gastric cancer resection depend on a multitude of variables, including the extent of resection, scope of lymphadenectomy, method of reconstruction, and potential for a minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy, compared with open gastrectomy, has been analyzed in numerous randomized control trials. Generally, those trials demonstrated statistically similar postoperative complication rates, mortality, and oncologic outcomes between the two approaches. Although laparoscopic gastrectomy requires longer operative times, significant improvements in estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and return of bowel function have been noted in patients who undergo laparoscopic gastrectomy. These short-term benefits, along with equivalent oncologic results, have influenced national guidelines in both Eastern and Western countries to recommend laparoscopy, especially for early stage disease. Although robotic gastrectomy has not been as widely validated in effective trials, studies have reported equivalent oncologic outcomes and similar or improved postoperative complication and recovery rates after robotic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. Comparing the two minimally invasive gastrectomy approaches, robotic surgery was associated with improved estimated blood loss, incidence of pancreatic sequela, and lymph node harvests in some studies, whereas laparoscopy resulted in lower operative times and hospital costs. Ultimately, when applying outcomes from the literature to clinical patient care decisions, it is imperative to recognize these studies' range of inclusion criteria, delineating between patients originating from Eastern or Western countries, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the volume of surgeon experience, and the extent of gastrectomy, among others.

Surgical Approach does not Affect Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD and RPD, respectively), on compliance and time to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic PDAC were analyzed in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Three groups were matched per propensity score: open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and MIPD, LPD and RPD, and converted and nonconverted patients. RIOT rates and time to RIOT were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 14,135 patients were included: 11,834 (83.7%) underwent OPD and 2301 (16.3%) underwent MIPD. After score matching, RIOT rates (67.2 vs. 65.3%; p = 0.112) and RIOT within 8 weeks (57.7 vs. 56.4%; p = 0.276) were similar among MIPD and OPD groups, and approach was not a significant predictor of RIOT on multivariable regression. Neither RIOT nor time to RIOT were different among LPD and RPD groups (63.9 vs. 67.0%, and 58.4 vs. 56.9%, respectively). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with lower conversion rates (HR 0.519; p < 0.001), and conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT (10 vs. 8 weeks; p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

In this national cohort, approach did not impact RIOT rates or time to RIOT for patients with PDAC. While conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT, readiness to commence adjuvant therapy was similar for LPD and RPD.

Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Techniques for Gastric Cancer Surgery in the United States

Background

This study investigated national implementation patterns and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) in gastric cancer surgery in the United States.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2008-2018. The MIG versus open gastrectomy approach was correlated with hospital factors, patient characteristics, and complications.

Results

There was more than a fivefold increase in MIG from 5.8% in 2008 to 32.9% in 2018 (nptrend < 0.001). Patients undergoing MIG had a lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p = 0.001). On risk adjusted analysis, black patients (AOR = 0.77, p = 0.024) and patients with income below 25th percentile (AOR = 0.80, p = 0.018) were less likely to undergo MIG. When these analyses were limited to minimally invasive capable centers only, these differences were not observed. Hospitals in the upper tertile of gastrectomy case volume, Northeast, and urban teaching centers were more likely to perform MIG. Overall, MIG was associated with a 0.7-day decrease in length of stay, reduced risk adjusted mortality rates (AOR = 0.58, p = 0.05), and a $4,700 increase in total cost.

Conclusions

In this national retrospective study, we observe socioeconomic differences in patients undergoing MIG, which is explained by hospital level factors in MIG utilization. We demonstrate that MIG is associated with a lower mortality compared with open gastrectomy. Establishing MIG as a safe approach to gastric cancers and understanding regional differences in implementation patterns can inform delivery of equitable high-quality health care.