Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients

Risk factors for liver dysfunction and their clinical importance after gastric cancer surgery

Postoperative hepatobiliary enzyme abnormalities often present as postoperative liver dysfunction in patients with gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to identify the risk factors for postoperative liver dysfunction and their clinical impact after GC surgery. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 124 patients with GC who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine between 2017 and 2019. Twenty (16.1%) patients with GC developed postoperative liver dysfunction (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 ≥ Grade 3). Univariate analyses identified robotic surgery as a risk factor for postoperative liver dysfunction (P = 0.005). There was no correlation between the postoperative liver dysfunction status and postoperative complications or postoperative hospital stays. Patients with postoperative liver dysfunction did not have significantly worse overall survival (P = 0.296) or recurrence-free survival (P = 0.565) than those without postoperative liver dysfunction. Robotic surgery is a risk factor for postoperative liver dysfunction; however, postoperative liver dysfunction does not affect short or long-term outcomes.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

The Evolving Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer

Robotic gastrectomy has been gaining ground in the past 20 years. This study aims to (a) provide an updated and all-encompassing comprehensive review including post-operative outcomes, rate of complications, surgical efficiency and costs, pathology, overall survival, mortality and recurrence, and disease-free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy, (b) report research gaps, and (c) identify ongoing or forthcoming clinical trials that could potentially shed light on underreported findings within the existing literature. Regarding the methodology, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between January 2012 and October 2023. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for related clinical trials currently underway or recruiting. Robotic gastrectomy, when compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, for the treatment of gastric cancer, performs equally well or shows superiority in terms of the length of hospitalization, overall complications rates, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, blood loss, mortality rates, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, distal and proximal resection margins, recurrence rate, reoperation rates, and overall survival. However, it is associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Parameters such as duodenal stump leakage, anastomosis stenosis, intestinal obstruction, ileus, delayed gastric emptying, wound complications, acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, direct costs, time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and disease-free survival are currently underreported in the literature and necessitate for further research. Lastly, four clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting that could possibly bridge the research gap.

Randomized controlled phase III trial to investigate superiority of robot-assisted gastrectomy over laparoscopic gastrectomy for clinical stage T1-4aN0-3 gastric cancer patients (JCOG1907, MONA LISA study): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is considered a standard treatment for clinical stage I gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has some drawbacks, such as motion restriction and difficulties in spatial perception. Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) overcomes these drawbacks by using articulated forceps, tremor-filtering capability, and high-resolution three-dimensional imaging, and it is expected to enable more precise and safer procedures than LG for gastric cancer. However, robust evidence based on a large-scale randomized study is lacking.

METHODS

We are performing a randomized controlled phase III study to investigate the superiority of RG over LG for clinical T1-2N0-2 gastric cancer in terms of safety. In total, 1,040 patients are planned to be enrolled from 46 Japanese institutions over 5 years. The primary endpoint is the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, including anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal abscess of Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ II. The secondary endpoints are the incidence of all CD grade ≥ II and ≥ IIIA postoperative complications, the incidence of CD grade ≥ IIIA postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, relapse-free survival, overall survival, the proportion of RG completion, the proportion of LG completion, the proportion of conversion to open surgery, the proportion of operation-related death, and short-term surgical outcomes. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Protocol Review Committee approved this study protocol in January 2020. Approval from the institutional review board was obtained before starting patient enrollment in each institution. Patient enrollment began in March 2020. We revised the protocol to expand the eligibility criteria to T1-4aN0-3 in July 2022 based on the results of randomized trials of LG demonstrating non-inferiority of LG to open surgery for survival outcomes in advanced gastric cancer.

DISCUSSION

This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to confirm the superiority of RG over LG in terms of safety. This study will demonstrate whether RG is superior for gastric cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of JCOG1907 was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000039825 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm ). Date of Registration: March 16, 2020. Date of First Participant Enrollment: April 1, 2020.

Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery: Short-Term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 25,521 Patients

Background: Gastric cancer has the third highest cancer-related mortality worldwide. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique to perform curative resection surgery. Objective: Compare laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) regarding short-term outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the following topics: "Gastrectomy," "Laparoscopic," and "Robotic Surgical Procedures." The included studies compared short-term outcomes between LG and RG. Individual risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale. Results: There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, distal and proximal resection margin distances, and recurrence rate. However, mean blood loss (mean difference [MD] -19.43 mL, P < .00001), length of hospital stay (MD -0.50 days, P = .0007), time to first flatus (MD -0.52 days, P < .00001), time to oral intake (MD -0.17 days, P = .0001), surgical complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, P < .0001), and pancreatic complications (RR 0.51, P = .007) were significantly lower in the RG group. Furthermore, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RG group. Nevertheless, the RG group showed a significantly higher operation time (MD 41.19 minutes, P < .00001) and cost (MD 3684.27 U.S. Dollars, P < .00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the choice of robotic surgery over laparoscopy concerning relevant surgical complications. However, longer operation time and higher cost remain crucial limitations. Randomized clinical trials are required to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of RG.

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.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes in very elderly patients (≥ 80 years old) and elderly (65-79 years old) colorectal cancer patients: a propensity score matching

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term outcomes and prognosis of elderly and very elderly colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after primary CRC surgery using propensity score matching (PSM).

Methods

This study retrospectively collected the medical records of CRC patients ≥ 65 years old undergoing primary CRC surgery from Jan 2011 to Jan 2020. Short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between very elderly CRC patients (≥ 80 years old) and elderly CRC patients (65–79 years old).

Results

A total of 2084 patients were enrolled for analysis. After PSM, 331 very elderly patients were matched to 331 elderly patients. In terms of short-term outcomes, the very elderly patients had longer postoperative hospital stays (p = 0.007) after PSM. In terms of OS, it was found that age (p < 0.01, HR = 1.878, 95% CI 1.488–2.371), tumor stage (p < 0.01, HR = 1.865, 95% CI 1.603–2.170), overall complications (p < 0.01, HR = 1.514, 95% CI 1.224–1.872) and major complications (p = 0.001, HR = 2.012, 95% CI 1.319–3.069) were independent prognostic factors. For DFS, age (p < 0.01, HR = 1.816, 95% CI 1.579–2.088), tumor stage (p < 0.01, HR = 1.816, 95% CI 1.579–2.088), overall complications (p = 0.002, HR = 1.379, 95% CI 1.128–1.685) and major complications (p = 0.002, HR = 1.902, 95% CI 1.259–2.874) were found to be independent prognostic factors. Moreover, elderly patients had a better OS and DFS than very elderly patients.

Conclusion

Very elderly patients had a poorer prognosis than elderly patients after primary CRC surgery. Surgeons should be cautious when treating very elderly CRC patients.

Quo Vadis Anesthesiologist? The Value Proposition of Future Anesthesiologists Lies in Preserving or Restoring Presurgical Health after Surgical Insult

This Special Issue of the Journal of Clinical Medicine is devoted to anesthesia and perioperative care [...].