An evidence-based review of the surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma

Evaluation of Peroperative and Oncological Results in Laparoscopic Surgery of Gastric Cancer in Elderly Patients: Single-Center Study

Introduction: Laparoscopic treatment of gastric cancer in elderly patients is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients based on the long- and short-term results of laparoscopic surgery. Materials and Methods: The data of 163 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Patients were categorized into two groups by age based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria: elderly (≥65 years, 80 cases) and nonelderly (<65 years, 83 cases). Patient characteristics and clinicopathological findings, surgical findings, short- and long-term results were compared between the two groups. Results: The patients in the study group were in the age range of 22-87 years and 80 (49%) patients were found out to be 65 years old or older. When all complications were categorized according to Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, >3 serious complication rates were similar between groups (P = .421). Although the length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care were higher in the elderly group, the difference was not significant (P = .066; P = .072). There was no significant difference between the two in terms of in-hospital mortality (P = .364). No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of overall survival (nonelderly group; 61.17 ± 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.61-67.74 versus elderly group; 56.48 ± 3.80, 95% CI: 49.03-63.93; P = .176) and disease-specific survival (nonelderly group; 64.24 ± 3.15, 95% CI: 58.06-70.40 versus elderly group; 61.93 ± 3.57, 95% CI: 54.93-68.93; P = .363) between the age groups. Conclusion: In conclusion, although laparoscopic gastrectomy is a feasible and safe method in elderly gastric cancer patients, further randomized prospective studies are needed.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) between elderly and non-elderly patients with gastric cancer.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using clinical and follow-up data from 168 patients treated with LTG for gastric cancer at our institution from January 2010 to December 2017. For this study, the short- and long-term outcomes (including tumor recurrence rate, disease-free survival rate, and overall survival rate) were compared between the elderly group (≥70 years) and non-elderly group (<70 years).

Results: The preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score and Charlson Comorbidity Index were higher in the elderly group than in the non-elderly group, while there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, and rate of conversion to laparotomy. The incidence of postoperative 30-day complications in the elderly group was higher than that in the non-elderly group due to a higher incidence of pulmonary infection, while the incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. The tumor recurrence rate was also similar in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of 5-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival rate.

Conclusions: LTG is safe and feasible for elderly patients with gastric cancer and is associated with relatively good long-term outcomes.

Surgeon's Experience Overrides the Effect of Hospital Volume for Postoperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery in Gastric Cancer: Multi-institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Hospital volume is known to be a crucial factor in reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, it is unclear whether surgeon's individual experience can overcome the effect of hospital volume.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic data of initial 50 laparoscopic gastrectomy cases were collected from six gastric cancer surgeons. Half of the six surgeons worked in high-volume centers, and the other half worked in low-volume hospitals. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the high-volume centers and the low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

Three low-volume hospitals in this study contained significantly more male and older patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score than high-volume centers. Although high- and low-volume hospitals mainly used laparoscopy-assisted and totally laparoscopic approach, respectively, there were no differences between the two groups in the extent of resection, operating time, estimated blood loss, and number of collected lymph nodes. Postoperative recovery such as duration to soft diet and hospital stay did not differ between the high- and the low-volume hospitals. No significant difference was found in postoperative morbidities by Clavien-Dindo classification. There was no mortality reported in both groups of the enrolled hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume is not a decisive factor in affecting postoperative morbidity and mortality for well-trained beginners in laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer.

Problems faced by evidence-based medicine in evaluating lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer

Gastric cancer surgical management differs between Eastern Asia and Western countries. Extended lymphadenectomy (D2) is the standard of care in Japan and South Korea since decades, while the majority of United States patients receive at most a limited lymphadenectomy (D1). United States and Northern Europe are considered the scientific leaders in medicine and evidence-based procedures are the cornerstone of their clinical practice. However, surgeons in Eastern Asia are more experienced, as there are more new cases of gastric cancer in Japan (107898 in 2012) than in the entire European Union (81592), or in South Korea (31269) than in the entire United States (21155). For quite a long time evidence-based medicine (EBM) did not solve the question whether D2 improves long-term prognosis with respect to D1. Indeed, eastern surgeons were reluctant to perform D1 even in the frame of a clinical trial, as their patients had a very good prognosis after D2. Evidence-based surgical indications provided by Western trials were questioned, as surgical procedures could not be properly standardized. In the present study we analyzed indications about the optimal extension of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer according to current scientific literature (2008-2012) and surgical guidelines. We searched PubMed for papers using the key words “lymphadenectomy or D1 or D2” AND “gastric cancer” from 2008 to 2012. Moreover, we reviewed national guidelines for gastric cancer management. The support to D2 lymphadenectomy increased progressively from 2008 to 2012: since 2010 papers supporting D2 have achieved a higher overall impact factor than the other papers. Till 2011, D2 was the procedure of choice according to experts’ opinion, while three meta-analyses found no survival advantage after D2 with respect to D1. In 2012-2013, however, two meta-analyses reported that D2 improves prognosis with respect to D1. D2 lymphadenectomy was proposed as the standard of care for advanced gastric cancer by Japanese National Guidelines since 1981 and was adopted as the standard procedure by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer since the Nineties. D2 is now indicated as the standard of surgical treatment with curative intent by the German, British and ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO guidelines. At variance American NCCN guidelines recommend a D1⁺ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection. In conclusion, D2 lymphadenectomy, originally developed by Eastern surgeons, is now becoming the procedure of choice also in the West. In gastric cancer surgery EBM is lagging behind national guidelines, rather than preceding and orienting them. To eliminate this lag, EBM should value to a larger extent Eastern Asian literature and should evaluate not only the quality of the study design but also the quality of surgical procedures.

Treatment results of curative gastric resection from a specialist Australian unit: low volume with satisfactory outcomes

BACKGROUND

The incidence of gastric cancer is decreasing in Australia, yet it remains a common cause of cancer-related mortality. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of curative treatment. High-volume specialized units have reported superior perioperative and oncological outcomes. The role of D2 lymphadenectomy has been controversial as a result of concerns over increased morbidity. Our aim is to report the perioperative and oncological outcomes of curative gastric resection from a specialist Australian upper GI unit.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively maintained database were reviewed for all patients undergoing curative resection for gastric adenocarcinoma from a single unit during a 12-year period. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compiled.

RESULTS

There were 255 curative gastric resections during 12 years. An R0 resection was performed in 96 % with a perioperative mortality rate of 1.6 %. A D2 dissection was performed in 85 % of cases in the past 6 years, with no increase in perioperative morbidity or mortality detected. The 5-year overall survival was 53 %.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that both short- and long-term outcomes of surgical resection in gastric cancer patients, comparable to international high-volume centers, can be achieved in an Australian upper GI unit. A D2 lymph node dissection can be performed safely without any increase in perioperative risk in a specialist unit that has the necessary training but also the perioperative support structures to manage these complex patients.