Long-term outcomes after prophylactic bursectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer: Final analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

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.

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.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Lack of Oncological Benefit from Bursectomy in Radical Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Resection of the omental bursa has been suggested to reduce peritoneal recurrence and facilitate a complete oncological resection during a gastrectomy. The addition of this procedure increases technical complexity and prolongs the procedure. Published data regarding the oncological benefit of this procedure are conflicting. We hypothesized that a bursectomy during a radical gastrectomy does not improve overall survival.

METHODS

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, a comprehensive literature search of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) was conducted to identify the clinical studies that compared bursectomy with no-bursectomy in radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis was performed using RevMan software. A random-/fixed-effect modeling was used depending upon the heterogeneity. Bias and quality assessment tools were applied. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42019116556).

RESULTS

Of 8 studies assessing the role of bursectomy in gastric adenocarcinoma, 6 (75%) were included - of which 2 (33%) are randomized controlled trials. Of 2,904 patients, 1,273 (%) underwent a bursectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in either overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.06, I2 = 14%) or disease recurrence (HR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.20, I2 = 22%) in the bursectomy group compared to the no-bursectomy group.

CONCLUSION

There is no additional oncological benefit of adding bursectomy to radical gastrectomy in all patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Three-year outcomes of the randomized phase III SEIPLUS trial of extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage for locally advanced gastric cancer

Whether extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) after gastrectomy is beneficial to patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is not clear. This phase 3, multicenter, parallel-group, prospective randomized study (NCT02745509) recruits patients between April 2016 and November 2017. Eligible patients who had been histologically proven AGC with T3/4NxM0 stage are randomly assigned (1:1) to either surgery alone or surgery plus EIPL. The results of the two groups are analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. A total of 662 patients with AGC (329 patients in the surgery alone group, and 333 in the surgery plus EIPL group) are included in the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints include 3-year disease free survival (DFS), 3-year peritoneal recurrence-free survival (reported in this manuscript) and 30-day postoperative complication and mortality (previously reported). The trial meets pre-specified endpoints. Estimated 3-year OS rates are 68.5% in the surgery alone group and 70.6% in the surgery plus EIPL group (log-rank p = 0.77). 3-year DFS rates are 61.2% in the surgery alone group and 66.0% in the surgery plus EIPL group (log-rank p = 0.24). The pattern of disease recurrence is similar in the two groups. In conclusion, EIPL does not improve the 3-year survival rate in AGC patients.

Anatomical Findings and Short-term Efficacy of Fascial Anatomy-guided Infrapyloric Lymphadenectomy in Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the anatomical layers of the specific fascia involved in infrapyloric lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer and to analyze the short-term efficacy of an anatomy-guided surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On the basis of many years of clinical practice in fascial anatomy-guided laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we proposed anatomical considerations for infrapyloric lymphadenectomy in this procedure and investigated the anatomy of the mesentery and mesenteric fusion in this region, including the specific starting and ending points and the plane of the operation. We also retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 265 patients who underwent fascial anatomy-guided infrapyloric lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer from January 2015 to January 2019 and compared the short-term efficacy between the fascial anatomy-guided laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy plus mesogastric excision group and the laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy group.

RESULTS

Extensive mesenteric fusion and folds exist in the infrapyloric region of the stomach, and removal of the medial fold (medial leg) and lateral fold (lateral leg) of the infrapyloric mesogastrium during surgery is easily missed, resulting in incomplete removal of the infrapyloric mesogastrium. Baseline data were comparable between the laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy plus mesogastric excision group and the laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy group. The mean operative time for infrapyloric lymphadenectomy, the number of positive lymph nodes harvested in the infrapyloric region, and the number of patients with mesenteric metastasis in the infrapyloric region were not significantly different (P>0.05). The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy plus mesogastric excision group than in the laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy group (5.09±3.30 vs. 4.13±2.90, P<0.05), and intraoperative blood loss was lower in the former group than in the latter group (5.89±3.78 vs. 25.21±11.24 mL, P=0.000).

CONCLUSION

Fascial anatomy-guided laparoscopic infrapyloric lymphadenectomy enables systematic and complete removal of the lymph nodes and mesentery of the infrapyloric region with less intraoperative blood loss.

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.

The role of bursectomy in the surgical management of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review

In order to delineate the exact role of bursectomy (BS) in gastric cancer surgery, we designed and conducted the present meta-analysis. This meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature review of the electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was introduced for the validation of the pooled analyses. The level of evidence was attributed based on the GRADE approach. Overall, nine studies and 3599 patients were included in our meta-analysis. BS did not lead to an increase in the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.42, p = 0.09). Equivalence was, also, identified in all specific postoperative complications. Similarly, mortality rates were comparable (p = 0.69). Moreover, BS was related to a significantly higher operative time (p < 0.001) and perioperative blood loss (p = 0.002). Finally, resection of the omental bursa was not associated with improved R0 excision rates (p = 0.92), lymph node harvest (p = 0.1) or survival outcomes (OS p = 0.15 and DFS p = 0.97). BS displayed a suboptimal perioperative performance without any significant oncological efficacy. Due to certain limitations and the low level of evidence, further high-quality RCTs are required.

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.

Essential updates 2017/2018: Recent topics in the treatment and research of gastric cancer in Japan

Recent developments in diagnostic technology, accumulated clinical effort and established evidence have boosted early detection and drastically improved early and long-term outcomes of gastric cancer. However, gastric cancer continues to be one of the most aggressive and life-threatening malignancies among all cancers and is a global health problem. Between January 2017 and December 2018, various fascinating reports of managements and research were published, including the new 15th Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma reflecting the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) tumor, node and metastasis (TNM) classification (October 2017) and the new Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines version 5 (January 2018). Moreover, pivotal molecular features of gastric cancer were clarified by the worldwide cancer genome project, and various treatment targets and biomarkers such as circulating DNAs and microRNAs were detected. Novel treatment options using programmed cell death protein 1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have been started. In this review, we summarize the recent topics of classification, guidelines, and clinical and basic research in order to bring new insights to gastric cancer treatment.

Oncologic Effectiveness and Safety of Bursectomy in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis

Purpose/Aim: In the past few decades some researchers have questioned whether bursectomy for gastric cancer is essential from an oncological point of view and no consistent recommendations have been proposed. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to investigate the oncologic effectiveness and safety of bursectomy for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We planned and performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, four studies with a total of 1,340 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival between the bursectomy versus nonbursectomy groups was [HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.66-1.11, p =.252]. Interestingly, the pooled HR between the two groups in serosa-positive cases subgroup, showed a significant improvement of overall survival rate in favor of bursectomy [HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.73-0.99, p <.05].

CONCLUSIONS

Bursectomy represents a surgical procedure that might be able to improve overall survival in serosa positive gastric cancer patients. However, a definitive conclusion could not be made because of the studies' methodological limitations. This meta-analysis points to the urgent need of high quality, large-scaled, clinical trials with short- as well as long-term evaluation comparing bursectomy with non bursectomy procedures, in a controlled randomized manner, helping future researches and establishing a modern and tailored approach to gastric cancer.

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The development of clinical guidelines for the surgical management of gastric cancer should be based on robust evidence from well-designed trials. Being able to reliably compare and combine the outcomes of these trials is a key factor in this process.

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation in outcome reporting by surgical trials for gastric cancer and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in an international consensus study to develop a core outcome set in this field.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature searches (Evidence Based Medicine, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and a review of study protocols of randomised controlled trials, published between 1996 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

Therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorised into groups (outcome themes) and examined for definitions and measurement instruments.

RESULTS

Of 1919 abstracts screened, 32 trials (9073 participants) were identified. A total of 749 outcomes were reported of which 96 (13%) were accompanied by an attempted definition. No single outcome was reported by all trials. 'Adverse events' was the most frequently reported 'outcome theme' in which 240 unique terms were described. 12 trials (38%) classified complications according to severity, with 5 (16%) using a formal classification system (Clavien-Dindo or Accordion scale). Of 27 trials which described 'short-term' mortality, 15 (47%) used one of five different definitions. 6 out of the 32 trials (19%) described 'patient-reported outcomes'.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials is inconsistent. A consensus approach to develop a minimum set of well-defined, standardised outcomes to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer is needed. This should consider the views of all key stakeholders, including patients.

Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis

Background

The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods

Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), operation time, operative bleeding, hospital stay, postoperative complication and mortality.

Results

A total of seven studies comprising 2633 cases (1176 cases in the bursectomy group and 1457 cases in the non-bursectomy group) were finally included. There was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, P = 0.647) and DFS (HR 0.99, P = 0.936) between the two groups. Even for patients with serosa-penetrating tumours, OS was comparable between the two groups (HR 0.87, P = 0.356). The operation time of the bursectomy group was longer (weighted mean difference, WMD 32.76 min, P = 0.002). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the number of dissected LNs (WMD 5.86, P = 0.157), operative bleeding (WMD 66.99 ml, P = 0.192) and hospital stay (WMD − 0.15 days, P = 0.766). The overall postoperative complication (relative risk, RR 1.08, P = 0.421) and mortality (RR 0.44, P = 0.195) were similar between two groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that bursectomy is time-consuming without increasing the number of harvested LNs. Although bursectomy can be safely performed without increasing complications and mortality, it does not prolong the OS and DFS of AGC patients, including patients with serosa-penetrating tumours. Therefore, bursectomy should not be recommended as a standard procedure for AGC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surgical anatomy of the omental bursa and the stomach based on a minimally invasive approach: different approaches and technical steps to resection and lymphadenectomy

BACKGROUND

It is imperative for surgeons to have a proper knowledge of the omental bursa in order to perform an adequate dissection during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This study aimed to describe (1) the various approaches which can be used to enter the bursa and to perform a complete lymphadenectomy, (2) the boundaries and anatomical landmarks of the omental bursa as seen during MIS, and (3) whether a bursectomy should be performed for oncological reasons in upper GI cancer.

METHODS

In this observational study, videos of 20 patients undergoing different MIS procedures were reviewed, and the findings were verified prospectively in 5 patients undergoing a total gastrectomy and in a transversely sectioned cadaver. A systematic literature review (PubMed) was performed on the additive value of bursectomy during gastrectomy for cancer.

RESULTS

The omental bursa can be surgically entered through the hepatogastric ligament, gastrocolic ligament, gastrosplenic ligament or through the transverse mesocolon. Anatomical boundaries of the omental bursa could be clearly identified, and new anatomical landmarks were described (gastro-omental folds). The cranial part of the omental bursa consists of two compartments (splenic recess and superior recess), separated by the gastropancreatic fold, communicating at the level of the pancreas, and extending distally as the inferior recess. There is no clear evidence regarding beneficial effect of a bursectomy in upper GI oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

The description of the omental bursa in this study may help surgeons perform a more adequate oncological dissection during MIS. Bursectomy should not be routinely performed during oncological resections.

Gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric cancers, with gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) as the most common histological type, impose a considerable global health burden. Although the screening strategies for early detection have been shown to be successful in Japan and South Korea, they are either not implemented or not feasible in most of the world, leading to late diagnosis in most patients. Helicobacter pylori infection contributes to the development of many endemic GACs, and pre-emptive eradication or early treatment of this bacterial infection might provide effective primary prevention. GACs are phenotypically and genotypically heterogeneous. Localized (clinical stage I) GAC is best treated either endoscopically or with limited surgical resection, but clinical stage II or stage III tumours require multidisciplinary adjunctive approaches in addition to surgery. Although GAC is highly treatable in its early stages, advanced (clinical stage IV) GAC has a median survival of just ∼9-10 months. However, detailed molecular and immune profiling of GAC is yielding promise; early studies with immune checkpoint inhibitors suggest that GAC is amenable to immune modulation. Molecular studies have yielded a vast quantity of new information for potential exploitation. Nevertheless, advances against GACs have lagged compared with other tumours of similar incidence, and more research is necessary to overcome the obstacles to prolong survival.

Changing Trends in Gastric Cancer Surgery

Gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death. It requires multimodal treatment and surgery is the most effective treatment modality. Radical surgery includes total or subtotal gastrectomy with lymph node dissection. The extent of lymphadenectomy still remains controversial. Eastern surgeons have performed D2 or more extended lymphadenectomy while their Western colleagues have performed more limited lymph node dissection. However, the trend has been changing in favour of D2 lymph node dissection in both hemispheres. Currently, D2 is the recommended type of lymphadenectomy in experienced centres in the west. In Japan, D2 lymph node dissection is the standard surgical approach. More extensive lymphadenectomy than D2 has not been found to be associated with improved survival and generally is not performed. Bursectomy and splenectomy are additional controversial issues in surgical performance, and trends regarding them will be discussed. The performance of bursectomy is controversial and there is no clear evidence of its clinical benefit. However, a trend toward better survival in patients with serosal invasion has been reported. Routine splenectomy as a part of lymph node dissection has largely been abandoned, although splenectomy is recommended in selected cases. Minimally invasive surgery has gained wide popularity and indications for minimally invasive procedures have been expanding due to increasing experience and improving technology. Neoadjuvant therapy has been shown to have beneficial effects and seems necessary to provide a survival benefit. Diagnostic laparoscopy should be kept in mind prior to treatment.

The Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) guidelines for gastric cancer staging and treatment: 2015

This article reports the guidelines for gastric cancer staging and treatment developed by the GIRCG, and contains comprehensive indications for clinical management, including radiological, endoscopic, surgical, pathological, and oncological paths.

Bursectomy and non-bursectomy D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer, initial experience from a single institution in China

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bursectomy of D2 gastrectomy in terms of postoperative complications and short-term survival outcomes.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2013, data of 406 gastric cancer patients with advanced tumor stages and who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy and were grouped according to whether bursectomy was performed or not in West China Hospital, Sichuan University, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Finally, 159 patients were in bursectomy group and 247 patients in non-bursectomy group. Surgical duration was 260.1 ± 43.4 min in the bursectomy group, compared to 227.9 ± 48.6 min in the non-bursectomy group (p < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss was comparable between the bursectomy group and the non-bursectomy group (198.9 ± 63.5 vs. 201.1 ± 53.7 ml, p = 0.729). Postoperative morbidity rate showed no significant difference between the two groups, which were 23.3 % in the bursectomy group and 17.8 % in the non-bursectomy group, p = 0.179. The overall survival outcomes of patients were compared between the two groups of all patients (p = 0.055): patients who underwent distal gastrectomy (p = 0.129) and total gastrectomy (p = 0.016) and pT2-3 stage patients (p = 0.117) and pT4a stage patients (p = 0.128). The multivariate survival analysis identified that bursectomy or not, pT stage and pN stage were independent prognostic risk factors for the overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The bursectomy might increase the surgical duration when the D2 gastrectomy was done. Experienced surgeons can perform it safely. However, for the survival benefits of bursectomy, long-term, large sample sized, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are expected.

Bursectomy at radical gastrectomy

Radical gastrectomy with extended lymph node dissection and prophylactic resection of the omentum, peritoneum over the posterior lesser sac, pancreas and/or spleen was advocated at the beginning of the 1960s in Japan. In time, prophylactic routine resections of the pancreas and/or spleen were abandoned because of the high incidence of postoperative complications. However, omentectomy and bursectomy continued to be standard parts of traditional radical gastrectomy. The bursa omentalis was thought to be a natural barrier against invasion of cancer cells into the posterior part of the stomach. The theoretical rationale for bursectomy was to reduce the risk of peritoneal recurrences by eliminating the peritoneum over the lesser sac, which might include free cancer cells or micrometastases. Over time, the indication for bursectomy was gradually reduced to only patients with posterior gastric wall tumors penetrating the serosa. Despite its theoretical advantages, its benefit for recurrence or survival has not been proven yet. The possible reasons for this inconsistency are discussed in this review. In conclusion, the value of bursectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer is still under debate and large-scale randomized studies are necessary. Until clear evidence of patient benefit is obtained, its routine use cannot be recommended.