Proximal gastric exclusion for unresectable gastric cancer

Are Palliative Interventions Worth the Risk in Advanced Gastric Cancer? A Systematic Review

Background: Less than 25% of gastric cancers (GC) are discovered early, leading to limited treatment options and poor outcomes (27.8% mortality, 3.7% 5-year survival). Screening programs have improved cure rates, yet post-diagnosis treatment guidelines remain unclear (systemic chemotherapy versus surgery). The optimal type of palliative surgery (palliative gastrectomy (PG), surgical bypass (SB), endoscopic stenting (ES)) for long-term outcomes is also debated. Methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases along with Google Scholar with the search terms "gastric cancer" and "palliative surgery" for studies post-1985. From the initial 1018 articles, multiple screenings narrowed it to 92 articles meeting criteria such as "metastatic, stage IV GC", and intervention (surgery or chemotherapy). Data regarding survival and other long-term outcomes were recorded. Results: Overall, there was significant variation between studies but there were similarities of the conclusions reached. ES provided quick symptom relief, while PG showed improved overall survival (OS) only with adjuvant chemotherapy in a selective population. PG had higher mortality rates compared to SB, with ES having a reported 0% mortality, but OS improved with chemotherapy across both SB and PG. Conclusions: Less frail patients may experience an improvement in OS with palliative resection under limited circumstances. However, operative intervention without systemic chemotherapy is unlikely to demonstrate a survival benefit. Further research is needed to explore any correlations.

Stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy is better than conventional gastrojejunostomy in palliative care of gastric outlet obstruction for gastric or pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Unresectable gastric or pancreatic malignancies are the most common cause of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Although several authors reported better outcomes in patients submitted to gastric partitioning gastrojejunostomy (GPGJ) compared to conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ), clinical experience with GPGJ is poor, studies comparing the two techniques are few and no randomized trials were performed. Our systematic review aimed at comparing GPGJ (partial or complete) with CGJ in patients operated for GOO for gastric or pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A computerized literature search was performed on Medline until January 2017. The studies included were 8 with a total of 226 patients. Study outcomes included delayed gastric emptying (DGE), nutrition by oral intake, length of hospital stay and survival time. The pooled effects were estimated using a fixed effect model or random effect model based on the heterogeneity test. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, the mean of the measures of central tendency was calculated.

Results

The GPGJ group had lower rates of DGE (OR =4.997, 95% CI: 2.310-10.810) and length of hospital stay (19.7 versus 23.3 days) and higher rates of nutrition by oral intake (OR =0.156, 95% CI: 0.055-0.442) and survival time (189.2 versus 115.2 days).

Conclusions

GPGJ is associated with lower rates of DGE and higher rates of normal oral intake compared to CGJ with a tendency towards better survival in the GPGJ group. Multicenter randomized controlled trials would be required to confirm these results.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing partial stomach partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus conventional gastrojejunostomy for malignant gastroduodenal obstruction

PURPOSE

Partial stomach partitioning gastrojejunostomy (PSPGJ) was introduced as a palliative treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGO) caused by unresectable gastric or periampullary cancers and suggested to offer advantages over conventional gastrojejunostomy (CGJ) in reducing the risk for delayed gastric emptying (DGE). However, insufficient evidence is available to allow a comprehensive view of the true value of PSPGJ. The present study aimed to show the advantages of PSPGJ in terms of alleviating DGE and improving postoperative recovery compared to CGJ.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, and studies comparing DGE and other perioperative and postoperative data including operation time, blood loss, total postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, postoperative period before oral intake, and/or hospital stay between PSPGJ and CGJ for MGO were incorporated. Risk ratio (RR) for binary variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables were calculated, and meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Seven studies containing 207 patients were included. The risk for DGE was significantly lower after PSPGJ (RR 0.32; 95%CI 0.17 to 0.60; P < 0.001). PSPGJ significantly reduced the postoperative hospital stay (WMD -6.1 days; 95%CI -8.9 to -3.3 days; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the other variables between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PSPGJ for MGO seems to offer significant advantages in terms of alleviating DGE and improving postoperative recovery compared to CGJ.