Laparoscopic or Open Distal Gastrectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Operable Gastric Cancer, a Randomized Phase II Trial (LANDSCOPE Trial)

FLOT Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy in the Treatment of Locally Resectable Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with advanced gastric cancer remains unsatisfactory, highlighting the need for improved therapeutic strategies. We analyzed 23 resectable advanced gastric cancer patients who received FLOT followed by laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to evaluate the efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma (stage cT3-4 and/or N + M0) underwent neoadjuvant FLOT therapy (four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles) at Shanghai East Hospital. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was scheduled 3-4 weeks after completion of the last cycle of preoperative chemotherapy. The type of surgical procedure was determined by the location and extent of the primary tumor.

RESULTS

23 patients were reviewed in the study. 20 patients (81.2%) received four courses of FOLT therapy, while 3 patients (18.8%) received three courses of treatment. There were 3 (13.0%) complete responses, 13 (56.5%) partial responses, 4 (26.1%) of stable disease, and 1 (4.3%) of progressive disease. The clinical efficacy response rate was 69.6%. The R0 resection rate was 91.3%. Only one patient exhibited grade III postoperative complications. The pathologic complete remission was 13%. The common grade 3/4 adverse events from chemotherapy were leucopenia (17.4%), neutropenia (30.4%), anemia (13%), anorexia (13%), and nausea (17.4%). Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients (26.1%). There was no treatment-related mortality or reoperation. The most reason for not completing chemotherapy was the patient's request.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that FLOT neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy, is effective and safe in advanced, resectable advanced 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.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: where are we now and where are we going?

INTRODUCTION

Minimally-invasive surgery is gaining increasing popularity for the management of gastric cancer (GC). Areas covered: The authors hereby comprehensively and systematically reviewed the randomized and/or prospective evidence on laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for GC. For early GC located in the distal stomach, various randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority/non-inferiority of LG especially in reducing surgical trauma and enhancing postoperative recovery without compromising surgical safety and oncologic efficacy. For advanced GC, while multicenter large-scale randomized evidence has demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LG by experienced hands, the long-term survival which is to be clarified by several ongoing trials are crucial to determine whether a more widespread application is acceptable. Randomized evidence regarding the application of laparoscopic total or proximal gastrectomy, which is technically challenging, is scarce. Various attempts in modification of the traditional laparoscopic approach to further reduce the trauma have been evaluated, such as single-incision and totally LG. LG is becoming increasingly individualized and precise. Expert commentary: The current randomized and/or prospective evidence supports the non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery especially for the management of early GC located in the distal stomach, while the definitive efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for more surgically challenging situations remains largely explorative and investigative.

Laparoscopic or open distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: study protocol for a randomised phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer. However, the prognosis is not satisfactory. Perioperative chemotherapy has been proposed to improve survival. Although still in debate, the efficacy of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer has been demonstrated in a few trials. Therefore, LDG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be a candidate for future standard treatment on advanced distal gastric cancer. We propose a randomised phase II trial to compare LDG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To test the efficacy and safety, a randomised, open-label, single-centre, phase II trial was designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of LDG compared with ODG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with 3-year recurrence-free survival as the primary endpoint. The chosen critical value of a non-inferiority margin was an increase of <8%. The study started in 2015 and enrolled 96 patients according to a prior sample size calculation. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach will be used for efficacy analysis, and as-treated analysis will be applied for safety analysis. The survival curves will be constructed as time-to-event plots using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical analyses will be conducted in standard statistical software with a significance level of 0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Peking University Cancer Hospital Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02404753; Pre-results.

Hot issues in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has become an indispensable part of gastric cancer treatment after more than 20 years of rapid development. The change of operation indications, the innovation of minimally invasive devices and surgical technique, and the idea of innovation are hot issues in minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. In this paper, we will discuss these hot issues in detail.

Evolution trends of indications for laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastric cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has the advantages open surgery of less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, faster postoperative recovery and smaller scar and has been widely carried out worldwide. Since laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer was carried out 20 years ago, the indications for laparoscopic gastric surgery has been expanding with the continuous progress of science and technology, the innovation of equipment, the improvement of the level of laparoscopic surgeons' awareness, and the obtainment of high quality clinical evidence. Here we review the evolution trends of indications for laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery.There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I(2) = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I(2) = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I(2) = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement.

Is Laparoscopic Surgery the Standard of Care for GI Luminal Cancer?

As surgeons in India strive to keep pace with the technical advances in the field of laparoscopic surgery, we endeavor to evaluate the mounting global evidence regarding laparoscopic gastric and colorectal resections for cancer. We seem to be riding on the crest of excellence in traditional open surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies, opening avenues for research and for the establishment of practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery. Results from available trials along with those from ongoing studies are paving the path toward the acceptance and standardization of these procedures. What must be ascertained is whether sound oncological principles, which are ultimately exhibited by long-term outcomes, are being preserved while garnering the established benefits of minimally invasive surgery.