Short-term outcomes in minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy: the differences between East and West. A systematic review of the literature

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy in the United States: A Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Survival Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used in the surgical management of gastric cancer; however, its adoption lags that of other cancers. Most randomized controlled trials comparing MIS to open gastrectomy have been conducted in Asia, with limited data from the United States. This study aimed to compare perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in a large US cohort.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic gastrectomy between 2010 and 2020. Multivariate regression models were used to examine the association between surgical approach and various outcomes, including 30-d readmission, length of stay (LOS), surgical margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-d mortality, and overall survival (OS). The interaction between surgical approach and tumor location (distal versus proximal or gastroesophageal junction [GEJ]) was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 34,937 included patients, 64.8% underwent open gastrectomy, 25.7% underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 9.5% underwent robotic surgery. MIS was associated with lower odds of 30-d readmission (laparoscopic: odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.89; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92), positive margins (laparoscopic: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90), 30-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.85; robotic: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.95), and 90-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; robotic: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.84), as well as improved OS (laparoscopic: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87; robotic: hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.83) compared to open surgery. Considering the interaction of approach with tumor location, for proximal/GEJ tumors, the associated outcome improvements with MIS were attenuated. We observe that the odds for 30-d readmission, 90-d mortality, and OS are similar to those for open operations. However, regardless of tumor location, robotic gastrectomy was associated with decreased LOS and yielded a higher lymph node count than laparoscopic or open approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large US cohort, MIS gastrectomy was associated with improved perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes compared to open surgery for distal gastric cancers. However, the associated benefits of MIS were attenuated for proximal/GEJ tumors, with higher odds of readmission, mortality, and worse OS. Notably, robotic gastrectomy was associated with superior lymph node yield and LOS compared to laparoscopic and open approaches, even for proximal/GEJ tumors. These findings underscore the need for further research, especially randomized controlled trials conducted in Western populations, to definitively determine the efficacy of MIS for distal and proximal/GEJ tumors and guide surgical decision-making for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Textbook outcome for evaluating the surgical quality of gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The textbook outcome (TO) is an indicator to evaluate surgical quality based on clinical, pathological, and surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the frequency, factors associated with achievement, and the prognostic impact of TO in gastric cancer treatment.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with gastric cancer operated with curative intent from 2009 to 2022 in a reference Cancer Center.

RESULTS

During the period, 681 patients were included and 444 (65.2%) achieved TO. Major surgical complications were the most common not-achieved outcome (16.4%) and intraoperative complications were the most achieved (96.2%). Most of the patients have failed in only 1 outcome (n = 105, 44.3%). Failure to achieve TO was associated with Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index ≥1 (46.4% vs 34.7%, p = 0.003), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification III/IV (40.1% vs 24.1%, p < 0.001), higher mean neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.7 vs 3.3, p = 0.024), D1 lymphadenectomy (26.2% vs 15.8%, p = 0.001), and elective postoperative Intensive Care Unit admission (46.4% vs 38.5%, p = 0.046). Disease-free and overall survival (both p < 0.001) were higher in the TO group even after the exclusion of cases with surgical mortality (p = 0.013 and p = 0.024, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TO was achieved in most of the cases and its failure was associated with poor clinical performance and it impacts both early surgical results as well as long-term survival.

Minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A pooled analysis of two European randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive techniques have shown better short term and similar oncological outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer in Asian countries. It remains unknown whether these outcomes can be extrapolated to Western countries, where patients often present with advanced gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pooled analysis of two Western randomized controlled trials (STOMACH and LOGICA trial) comparing minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in advanced gastric cancer was performed. Postoperative recovery (complications, mortality, hospital stay), oncological outcomes (lymph node yield, radical resection rate, 1-year survival), and quality of life was assessed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-one patients were included from both trials. Of these, 162 patients (50.5%) were allocated to MIG and 159 patients (49.5%) to OG. A significant difference was seen in blood loss in favor of MIG (150 vs. 260 mL, p < 0.001), whereas duration of surgery was in favor of OG (180 vs. 228.5 min, p = 0.005). Postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes and quality of life were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MIG showed no difference to OG regarding postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes or quality of life, and is therefore a safe alternative to OG in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Cancer: Cut Down Complications to Unveil Positive Results of Minimally Invasive Approach

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have confirmed the advantages of laparoscopic surgery in early gastric cancer, and there are indications that this may also apply in advanced distal gastric cancer. The study objective was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), in comparison to open gastrectomy (OG), in the management of locally advanced gastric cancer. The single-center, case–control study included 204 patients, in conveyance sampling, who underwent radical gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer. Out of 204 patients, 102 underwent LG, and 102 patients underwent OG. The primary endpoints were safety endpoints, i.e., complication rates, reoperation rates, and 30-day mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were efficacy endpoints, including perioperative characteristics and oncological outcomes. Even though the overall complication rate was higher in the OG group compared to the LG group (30.4% and 19.6%, respectively), the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.075). No significant difference was identified in reoperation rates and 30-day mortality rates. Time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay were shorter in the LG group compared to the OG group (p < 0.001). Although the number of retrieved lymph nodes is oncologically adequate in both groups, the median number is higher in the OG group (35 vs. 29; p = 0.024). Resection margins came out to be negative in 92% of patients in the LG group and 73.1% in the OG group (p < 0.001). The study demonstrated statistically longer survival rates for the patients in the laparoscopic group, which particularly applies to patients in the most prevalent, third stage of the disease. When patients with the Clavien–Dindo grade ≥II were excluded from the survival analysis, further divergence of survival curves was observed. In conclusion, LG can be safely performed in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer and accomplish the oncological standard with short ICU and overall hospital stay. Since postoperative complications could affect overall treatment results and diminish and blur the positive effect of the minimally invasive approach, further clinical investigations should be focused on the patients with no surgical complications and on clinical practice to cut down the prevalence of complications.

Peripheral Lymphocyte Subsets Absolute Counts as Feasible Clinical Markers for Predicting Surgical Outcome in Gastric Cancer Patients After Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Immune function influenced patients’ recovery from major abdominal surgery. The aim of this study is to explore the clinical feasibility of peripheral lymphocyte absolute counts for predicting short-term surgical outcomes in gastric cancer patients after laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study from a single tertiary referral hospital. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. We collected the demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of included patients. We monitored perioperative dynamics of absolute counts of peripheral lymphocyte subsets. Predictive factors for length of postoperative hospital stay and complications were investigated in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 137 gastric cancer patients were included. Decreased preoperative absolute counts of peripheral lymphocyte subsets were correlated with advanced clinical stage. In multivariate analysis, independent predictive factors for prolonged hospital stay were age (p=0.04), decreased preoperative B cell counts (p=0.05), decreased preoperative NK cell counts (p=0.05) and complications (p<0.01). For postoperative complication, independent predictive factors were age (p=0.02), operation time (p=0.05), lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (p=0.01) and decreased preoperative B cell counts (p=0.01).

Conclusion

Our findings for the first time revealed that absolute counts of peripheral lymphocyte subsets are independent predictive factors for surgical outcomes in gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. We suggested that patients with impaired immune state should receive both preoperative immune modulator and nutritional support.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for early and advanced gastric cancer in a western center: a propensity score-matched analysis

The employment of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the management of gastric cancer (GC) is increasing. Despite recent results from randomized trials, its effectiveness and oncological results in different scenarios remain controversial, especially in western centers. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival of LG with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC. We reviewed all GC patients who underwent curative gastrectomy from a prospective database. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis including 10 variables was conducted to reduce patient selection bias using a 1:1 case-control match. A total of 530 GC were eligible for inclusion (438 OG and 92 LG). Older age, lower hemoglobin levels, total gastrectomy, larger tumor size, greater depth of tumor invasion and advanced pTNM stage was more frequent in the OG group. After PMS analysis, 92 patients were matched in each group. All variables assigned in the score were well matched. LG group had a slightly higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (42.3 vs 37.6), however, without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.072). No differences were recorded about the frequency of major postoperative complications (POC) and mortality rates between OG and LG groups (12% vs 15.2%, p = 0.519, respectively). In survival analysis, after matching, there was no difference in survival between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that only ASA and pN stage were independent factor associated with survival after PSM. In conclusion, laparoscopic gastrectomy was a safe and effective surgical technique for gastric cancer, with short-term and oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery.

Comparison of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a low volume center experience

Objectives

In gastric cancer, laparoscopic gastrectomy is commonly performed in Asian countries. In other regions where tumor incidence is relatively low and patient characteristics are different, developments in this issue have been limited. In this study, we aimed to compare the early results for patients who underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a low volume center.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent curative gastric resection (open gastrectomy n: 30; laparoscopic gastrectomy n: 30) by the same surgical team between 2014 and 2019.

Results

The tumor was localized in 60% (36/60) of the patients in the proximal and middle 1/3 stomach. In laparoscopic gastrectomy group, the operation time was significantly longer (median, 297.5 vs 180 minutes; p <0.05). In open gastrectomy group, intraoperative blood loss (median 50 vs 150 ml; p <0.05) was significantly higher. Tumor negative surgical margin was achieved in all cases. Although the mean number of lymph nodes harvested in laparoscopic gastrectomy group was higher than the open surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant (28.2 ± 11.48 vs 25.8 ± 9.78, respectively; p= 0.394). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 3) was less common in the laparoscopic group (6.7% vs 16.7%; p= 0.642). Mortality was observed in four patients (2 patients open, 2 patients laparoscopic).

Conclusion

In low-volume centers with advanced laparoscopic surgery experience, laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer can be performed with the risk of morbidity-mortality similar to open gastrectomy.

Textbook outcome and survival of robotic versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched cohort study

Textbook outcome is a composite quality measurement of short-term outcomes for evaluating complex surgical procedures. We compared textbook outcome and survival of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) with those of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). We retrospectively reviewed 395 patients (RTG, n = 74; LTG, n = 321) who underwent curative total gastrectomy for gastric cancer via minimally invasive approaches from 2009 to 2018. We performed propensity score matched analysis to adjust for potential selection bias. Textbook outcome included a negative resection margin, no intraoperative complication, retrieved lymph nodes > 15, no severe complication, no reintervention, no unplanned intensive care unit admission, hospitalization ≤ 21 days, no readmission after discharge, and no postoperative mortality. Survival outcomes included 3-year overall and relapse-free survival rates. After matching, 74 patients in each group were selected. Textbook outcome was similar in the RTG and LTG groups (70.3% and 75.7%, respectively), although RTG required a longer operative time. The quality metric least often achieved was the presence of severe complications in both groups (77.0% in both groups). There were no differences in the 3-year overall survival rate (98.6% and 89.7%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.144) and relapse-free survival rate between the RTG and LTG groups (97.3% and 87.0%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.167). Textbook outcome and survival outcome of RTG were similar to those of LTG for gastric cancer.

Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.

Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated.

METHODS

A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen.

Implementation of minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer in a western tertiary referral center

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have gradually come to take a leading position in the surgical treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. In order to define an effective process for the implementation of similar techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer, patient caseload represents a pivotal factor for education and training, but is a prerequisite not fulfilled in most Western countries. Additionally, as opposed to the East, a variety of additional factors such as the usually advanced stage of the disease and differences in patient characteristics are prevailing and raise further obstacles. Hereby we report a strategy for a safe and effective process for the implementation of laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery in a Western tertiary referral center.

Methods

The present study describes the stepwise implementation of laparoscopic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer at a tertiary referral center, comprising the time period 2012–2019. This process was facilitated by a close collaboration with two high-volume centers in Japan, as well as exchanging fellowships and observerships between the Karolinska University Hospital and other European centers. From the initially strict selection of cases for laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic gastrectomy has gradually become the preferred approach also in patients with locally advanced tumors.

Results

From January 1st 2010 until December 31st 2019, 249 patients were operated for gastric cancer, of whom 141 (56.6%) had an open and 108 (43.4%) a laparoscopic procedure. In the latter group, total gastrectomy was performed in 33.3% of the patients. While blood loss, operation time and length of stay decreased during the first years after implementation, these variables increased slightly during the last years of the study period, probably due to the higher proportion of advanced gastric cancer cases, as well as the higher rate of laparoscopic total gastrectomy with more extended lymphadenectomy.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery is currently a valid therapeutic option for gastric cancer, which has expanded to also embrace total gastrectomy and locally advanced tumors. Collaboration between centers in the East and West, centralization to high-volume centers and application of enhanced recovery protocols are essential components in the implementation and further refinement of minimally invasive gastrectomy.

Cautious optimism-the current role of immunotherapy in gastrointestinal cancers

Immunotherapy has been described as the "fourth pillar" of oncology treatment, in conjunction with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the role of immunotherapy in gastrointestinal tumours is still evolving. Data for checkpoint inhibition in esophagogastric, hepatocellular, colorectal, and anal squamous cell carcinomas are expanding. In phase iii trials in the second-line setting, PD-1 inhibitors have demonstrated positive results for the subset of esophageal cancers that are positive for PD-L1 at a combined positive score of 10 or more. Based on results of phase ii trials, PD-1 inhibitors were approved in North America for use in PD-L1-positive chemorefractory gastric cancers, in hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib exposure, and in treatment-refractory deficient mismatch repair (dmmr) or high microsatellite instability (msi-h) tumours, regardless of tissue site. Combination use of PD-1 and ctla-4 inhibitors has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for chemorefractory dmmr or msi-h colorectal cancer. Responses to checkpoint inhibition are durable, particularly in the dmmr or msi-h colorectal cancer cohort. As trials of combination immunotherapy, immunotherapy in combination with other systemic therapies, and immunotherapy in combination with other treatment modalities move forward in multiple tumour sites, cautious optimism is called for. The treatment landscape is continually changing, and expanded indications are likely to be just around the corner.

Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Standard therapy for loco-regionally advanced, resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ-preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, and 33 were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RRs) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.57-0.83), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71), respectively. When only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline, no significant differences for 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.10), 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.14) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.12).

CONCLUSION

These meta-analyses do not show clear survival advantage for TMT over dCRT. Only a non-significant trend towards better survival was seen, assuming comparable patient groups at baseline. Non-operative management of oesophageal carcinoma patients might be part of a personalised and tailored treatment approach in future. However, to date hard evidence proving its non-inferiority compared to operative management is lacking.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy performed by trainees supervised by an experienced qualified surgeon

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is becoming more commonly performed, but acquisition of its technique remains challenging. We investigated whether laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) performed by trainees (TR) supervised by a technically qualified experienced surgeon (QS) is feasible and safe.

METHODS

The short-term outcomes of LDG were assessed in patients with gastric cancer between 2008 and 2018. We compared patients who underwent LDG performed by qualified experienced surgeons (QS group) with patients who underwent LDG performed by the trainees (TR group).

RESULTS

The operation time was longer in the TR group than in the QS group (median time: 270 min vs. 239 min, p < 0.001). The median duration of the postoperative hospital stay was 9 days in the QS group and 8 days in the TR group (p = 0.003). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. Grade 2 or higher postoperative complications occurred in 18 patients (12.9%) in the QS group and 47 patients (11.7%) in the TR group (p = 0.763). Grade 3 or higher postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (6.4%) in the QS group and 17 patients (4.2%) in the TR group (p = 0.357). Multivariate analysis showed that the American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status was an independent predictor of grade 2 or higher postoperative complications and that gender was an independent predictor of grade 3 or higher postoperative complications. The main operator (TR/QS) was not an independent predictor of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy performed by trainees supervised by an experienced surgeon is a feasible and safe procedure similar to that performed by experienced surgeons.

Perioperative nutrition and enhanced recovery after surgery in gastrointestinal cancer patients. A position paper by the ESSO task force in collaboration with the ERAS society (ERAS coalition)

Malnutrition in cancer patients - in both prevalence and degree - depends primarily on tumor stage and site. Preoperative malnutrition in surgical patients is a frequent problem and is associated with prolonged hospital stay, a higher rate of postoperative complications, higher re-admission rates, and a higher incidence of postoperative death. Given the focus on the cancer and its cure, nutrition is often neglected or under-evaluated, and this despite the availability of international guidelines for nutritional care in cancer patients and the evidence that nutritional deterioration negatively affects survival. Inadequate nutritional support for cancer patients should be considered ethically unacceptable; prompt nutritional support must be guaranteed to all cancer patients, as it can have many clinical and economic advantages. Patients undergoing multimodal oncological care are at particular risk of progressive nutritional decline, and it is essential to minimize the nutritional/metabolic impact of oncological treatments and to manage each surgical episode within the context of an enhanced recovery pathway. In Europe, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and routine nutritional assessment are only partially implemented because of insufficient awareness among health professionals of nutritional problems, a lack of structured collaboration between surgeons and clinical nutrition specialists, old dogmas, and the absence of dedicated resources. Collaboration between opinion leaders dedicated to ERAS from both the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and the ERAS Society was born with the aim of promoting nutritional assessment and perioperative nutrition with and without an enhanced recovery program. The goal will be to improve awareness in the surgical oncology community and at institutional level to modify current clinical practice and identify optimal treatment options.