Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Gastrectomy on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Gastric Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) has been shown to improve short-term outcomes compared with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with early (EGC) and locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). The impact of MIDG on patient survival remains debated. This study aimed to compare the effect of MIDG versus ODG on long-term survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized clinical trial (RCTs) individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis with restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) estimation. Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Primary outcomes were 5-year overall (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and cancer specific survival (CSS). RMSTD and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. The certainty of evidence was categorized with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Overall, ten RCTs (5297 patients) were included; 50.4% of patients underwent MIDG. At 60-months follow-up, the OS and DFS estimates for ODG versus MIDG were 0.41 months (95% CI - 0.17, 0.99; high level of certainty) and 0.42 months (95% CI - 0.38, 1.23; high level of certainty). CSS was specified in two RCTs, hence quantitative analysis was not practicable. The 60-month OS and DFS estimates for LAGC (five studies) were 0.32 months (95% CI - 0.80, 1.44; high level of certainty) and 0.31 months (95% CI - 2.02, 1.33; high level of certainty), respectively. The 36-month DFS appraisal for stage III patients (three studies) was - 0.41 months (95% CI - 26.1, 38.2; low level of certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found high-certainty evidence that MIDG and ODG demonstrate similar 5-year OS and DFS in patients with both EGC and LAGC.

Advantages of adjuvant chemotherapy using S-1 following minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer versus open surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is essential to ensure optimal adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy regimens following gastric cancer surgery. However, treatment intensity for S-1 as adjuvant chemotherapy has not as yet been compared between minimally invasive (MI) and open (Open) surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared dose modification of adjuvant S-1 between MI and Open surgery in patients undergoing R0 gastrectomy for gastric or esophago-gastric junction cancer at the Cancer Institute Hospital Tokyo, Japan, during the period from 2012 to 2022, and receiving S-1 for pStage II or S-1 plus docetaxel for pStage III as adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for possible confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 323 patients were initially included. After PSM, 158 patients remained, 79 in each group. The adjuvant chemotherapy completion rates were similar in the two groups. However, the proportion of patients who required S-1 dose reduction was significantly lower in the MI than in the Open group (43.0% vs. 65.8%, p = 0.004). In addition, the MI group had significantly fewer patients requiring suspension of S-1 than the Open group (46.8% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.025). Moreover, the frequency of adverse events of grade ≥ 3 was significantly lower in the MI than in the Open group (17.7% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

In adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer, minimally invasive surgery may offer better treatment intensity for oral S-1 administration than open surgery.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) has been shown to be associated with improved short-term outcomes compared to open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). The impact of MIDG on long-term patient survival remains debated. Aim was to compare the MIDG vs. ODG effect on long-term survival.

METHODS

Systematic review and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Five-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included (2835 patients). Overall, 1421 (50.1%) patients underwent MIDG and 1414 (49.9%) ODG. The ages ranged from 48 to 70 years and 63.4% were males. The pooled 5-year OS (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.04; I2 = 0.0%) and 5-year DFS (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; I2 = 0.0%) were similar for MIDG vs. ODG. The TSA shows a cumulative z-curve without crossing the monitoring boundaries line (Z = 1.96), thus suggesting not conclusive 5-year OS and DFS results because the total information size was not sufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDG and ODG seem to have equivalent 5-year OS and DFS in patients with LAGC. However, the cumulative evidence derived from the TSA showed that the actual information size is not sufficient to provide conclusive data.

The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Program in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although ERAS Program had some advantages in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), its efficacy and safety remained unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the ERAS group and the traditional care (TC) group in LDG.

METHODS

Multiple databases were retrieved from 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2023. The risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the results.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis contained 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies, which comprised 1468 patients. Regarding efficacy, the ERAS group had significantly shorter postoperative time to first flatus (SMD = -1.29 [95% CI: -1.68, -0.90]), shorter time to first defecation (SMD = -1.26 [95% CI: -1.90, -0.61]), shorter hospital stays (SMD = -0.99 [95% CI: -1.34, -0.63]), and lower hospitalization costs (SMD = -1.17 [95% CI: -1.86, -0.48]) compared to the TC group. Furthermore, in the ERAS group, C-reactive protein levels were lower on postoperative days 1, 3 or 4, and 7; albumin levels were higher on postoperative days 3 or 4 and 7; and interleukin-6 levels were lower on postoperative days 1 and 3. Regarding safety, the overall postoperative complication rate was lower in the ERAS group (RR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.97]), but there was no significant difference in the individual postoperative complication rate. Other indicators were also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ERAS Program with laparoscopy surgery was safe and effective for the perioperative management of patients with distal gastric cancer.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy in the United States: A Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Survival Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used in the surgical management of gastric cancer; however, its adoption lags that of other cancers. Most randomized controlled trials comparing MIS to open gastrectomy have been conducted in Asia, with limited data from the United States. This study aimed to compare perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy in a large US cohort.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic gastrectomy between 2010 and 2020. Multivariate regression models were used to examine the association between surgical approach and various outcomes, including 30-d readmission, length of stay (LOS), surgical margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-d mortality, and overall survival (OS). The interaction between surgical approach and tumor location (distal versus proximal or gastroesophageal junction [GEJ]) was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 34,937 included patients, 64.8% underwent open gastrectomy, 25.7% underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 9.5% underwent robotic surgery. MIS was associated with lower odds of 30-d readmission (laparoscopic: odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.89; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92), positive margins (laparoscopic: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93; robotic: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90), 30-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.85; robotic: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.95), and 90-d mortality (laparoscopic: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; robotic: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.84), as well as improved OS (laparoscopic: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87; robotic: hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.83) compared to open surgery. Considering the interaction of approach with tumor location, for proximal/GEJ tumors, the associated outcome improvements with MIS were attenuated. We observe that the odds for 30-d readmission, 90-d mortality, and OS are similar to those for open operations. However, regardless of tumor location, robotic gastrectomy was associated with decreased LOS and yielded a higher lymph node count than laparoscopic or open approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large US cohort, MIS gastrectomy was associated with improved perioperative, oncologic, and survival outcomes compared to open surgery for distal gastric cancers. However, the associated benefits of MIS were attenuated for proximal/GEJ tumors, with higher odds of readmission, mortality, and worse OS. Notably, robotic gastrectomy was associated with superior lymph node yield and LOS compared to laparoscopic and open approaches, even for proximal/GEJ tumors. These findings underscore the need for further research, especially randomized controlled trials conducted in Western populations, to definitively determine the efficacy of MIS for distal and proximal/GEJ tumors and guide surgical decision-making for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Reconstruction Techniques and Associated Morbidity in Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy for Cancer: Insights From the GastroBenchmark and GASTRODATA databases

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Various anastomotic and reconstruction techniques are used for minimally invasive total (miTG) and distal gastrectomy (miDG). Their effects on postoperative morbidity have not been extensively studied.

METHODS

MiTG and miDG patients were selected from 9356 oncological gastrectomies performed in 2017-2021 in 43 centers. Endpoints included anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and postoperative morbidity tested by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Three major anastomotic techniques [circular stapled (CS); linear stapled (LS); and hand sewn (HS)], and 3 major bowel reconstruction types [Roux (RX); Billroth I (BI); Billroth II (BII)] were identified in miTG (n=878) and miDG (n=3334). Postoperative complications, including AL (5.2% vs 1.1%), overall (28.7% vs 16.3%), and major morbidity (15.7% vs 8.2%), as well as 90-day mortality (1.6% vs 0.5%) were higher after miTG compared with miDG. After miTG, the AL rate was higher after CS (4.3%) and HS (7.9%) compared with LS (3.4%). Similarly, major complications (LS: 9.7%, CS: 16.2%, and HS: 12.7%) were lowest after LS. Multivariate analysis confirmed anastomotic technique as a predictive factor for AL, overall, and major complications. In miDG, AL rate (BI: 1.4%, BII 0.8%, and RX 1.2%), overall (BI: 14.5%, BII: 15.0%, and RX: 18.7%), and major morbidity (BI: 7.9%, BII: 9.1%, and RX: 7.2%), and mortality (BI: 0%, BII: 0.1%, and RY: 1.1%%) were not affected by bowel reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

In oncologically suitable situations, miDG should be preferred to miTG, as postoperative morbidity is significantly lower. LS should be a preferred anastomotic technique for miTG in Western Centers. Conversely, bowel reconstruction in DG may be chosen according to the surgeon's preference.

Short-Term Outcomes Analysis Comparing Open, Lap-Assisted, Totally Laparoscopic, and Robotic Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Total gastrectomy (TG) is the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer (GC). While open TG (OTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard, alternative techniques such as lap-assisted TG (LATG), totally laparoscopic TG (TLTG), and robotic TG (RTG) have been reported with promising outcomes. The present analysis aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of different techniques for TG comprehensively in the setting of GC.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were overall complications (OC), severe postoperative complications (SPCs), and anastomotic leak (AL). Pooled effect-size measures included risk ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies (44,689 patients) were included. Overall, 52.4% underwent OTG, 6.5% LATG, 39.2% TLTG, and 1.9% RTG. Both TLTG (RR 0.82; 95% CrI 0.73-0.92) and RTG (RR 0.75; 95% CrI 0.59-0.95) showed a reduced rate of postoperative OC compared to OTG. SPCs and AL RR were comparable across all techniques. Despite the longer operative time, LATG, TLTG, and RTG showed reduced intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus, ambulation, liquid diet resumption, and hospital stay compared to OTG.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches seem to be associated with improved OC and functional outcomes compared to OTG.

The short-term efficacy of neoadjuvant SOX versus SOX plus immune checkpoint inhibitor following laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the short-term efficacy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) who accepted laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after neoadjuvant SOX versus SOX plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODS

LAGC patients who accepted LG after neoadjuvant SOX (SOX-LG, n = 169) and SOX plus ICIs (SOX + ICIs-LG, n = 140) in three medical centers between Jan 2020 and Mar 2024 were analyzed. We compared the tumor regression, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), perioperative safety between two groups, and explored the risk factors of postoperative complications (POCs) for LG after neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups (P > 0.05). SOX + ICIs-LG group acquired a higher proportion of objective response (63.6% vs. 46.7%, P = 0.003), major pathological response (43.6% vs. 31.4%, P = 0.001), and pathological complete response (17.9% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in the TRAEs rates, operation time, R0 resection, retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative first flatus, and hospitalized days, overall and severe POCs between two groups (P > 0.05). Patients in the SOX-ICIs-LG group had lower estimated blood loss (EBL) compared with SOX-LG (P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that more EBL (P = 0.003) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) < 40 (P = 0.005) were independent risk factors of POCs for LG after neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant SOX plus ICIs brings better tumor regression and similar TRAEs compared with SOX alone for LAGC. SOX + ICIs-LG is safe and feasible to conduct with less EBL. Surgeons should focus on the perioperative management to control POCs for patients with PNI < 40 and more EBL.

Comparison of Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer with Antecolic Versus Retrocolic Reconstruction: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the rates of 90-day anastomotic complications and other postoperative complications after total or partial gastrectomy with antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction in a population-based setting.

METHODS

This population-based nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients undergoing total or partial gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Finland in 2005-2016, with follow-up until 31 December 2019. Logistic regression provided odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 90-day mortality. Results were adjusted for age, sex, year of the surgery, comorbidities, tumor locations, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 2063 patients having gastrectomy with antecolic (n = 814) or retrocolic (n = 1249) reconstruction were identified from the registries. The anastomotic complication rate was 3.8% with antecolic reconstruction and 5.0% with retrocolic reconstruction. Antecolic reconstruction was not associated with a higher risk of anastomotic complications compared with retrocolic reconstruction in the adjusted analysis (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44-1.09) of the whole cohort or in the predefined subgroups. The reoperation rate was 8.2% with antecolic reconstruction and 7.7% with retrocolic reconstruction, without statistical significance. In subgroup analysis of total gastrectomy patients, the risk of major complications was lower with antecolic reconstruction compared with retrocolic reconstruction (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of anastomotic complications did not differ after antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction after total or partial gastrectomy. In total gastrectomies, the risk of major complications was lower after antecolic compared with retrocolic reconstruction.

Prognostic Relevance of Preoperative Immune, Inflammatory, and Nutritional Biomarkers in Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma: An Observational Multicentre Study

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate different preoperative immune, inflammatory, and nutritional scores and their best cut-off values as predictors of poorer overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients who underwent curative gastric cancer resection. Methods: This was a retrospective observational multicentre study based on data of the Spanish EURECCA Esophagogastric Cancer Registry. Time-dependent Youden index and log-rank test were used to obtain the best cut-offs of 18 preoperative biomarkers for OS and DFS. An adjusted Cox model with variables selected by bootstrapping was used to identify the best preoperative biomarkers, which were also analysed for every TNM stage. Results: High neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), high monocyte systemic inflammation index (moSII), and low prognostic nutritional index (PNI) were identified as independent predictors of poor outcome: NLR > 5.91 (HR:1.73; 95%CI [1.23-2.43]), moSII >2027.12 (HR:2.26; 95%CI [1.36-3.78]), and PNI >40.31 (HR:0.75; 95%CI [0.58-0.96]) for 5-year OS and NLR > 6.81 (HR:1.75; 95%CI [1.24-2.45]), moSII > 2027.12 (HR:2.46; 95%CI [1.49-4.04]), and PNI > 40.31 (HR:0.77; 95%CI [0.60,0.97]) for 5-year DFS. These outcomes were maintained in the whole cohort for NLR and moSII (p < 0.05) but not in stage II and for PNI in all tumoral stages. The associations of NLR-PNI and moSII-PNI were also a relevant prognostic factor for OS. Conclusions: High NLR, high moSII (for stages I and III), and low PNI (regardless of tumour stage) were the most promising preoperative biomarkers to predict poor OS and DFS in gastric cancer patients treated with curative intent.

Prognostic significance of the cachexia index in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy: a retrospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To investigate the prognostic utility of the cachexia index (CXI) in unresectable advanced gastric cancer (UAGC).

METHODS

The relationship between CXI and the outcomes was evaluated in 102 patients with UAGC who had received first-line palliative 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy between January 2012 and December 2021.

RESULTS

The median survival time (MST) from first-line chemotherapy initiation was 16.2 months, and the cohort included 60 and 42 patients with high and low CXIs, respectively, based on the optimal CXI cutoff. The rates of patients with a performance status score of 0, recurrence, third-line chemotherapy, and all grade 3-4 side effects, including febrile neutropenia (FN), were significantly higher in the CXIhigh group than in the CXIlow group. The prognosis based on MST was significantly better in the CXIhigh group than in the CXIlow group (22.5 vs. 11.6 months, p < 0.001). According to a multivariate analysis, a low CXI and performance status score of 1-2 were poor prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with UAGC and a low CXI had poorer prognoses and more frequent grade 3-4 side effects, including FN, than those with a high CXI. Patients with UAGC and a low CXI should be carefully managed to control for side effects to receive subsequent treatment.

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy: A Systematic Review

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.

Background

High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.

Results

Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.

Conclusion

According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.

[Anastomotic techniques in minimally invasive esophageal and gastric surgery]

In specialized centers minimally invasive surgery has become established as the standard of care for esophageal and gastric surgery. Offering equal oncological outcome, patients benefit with respect to lower postoperative pain and complication rates. The creation of the anastomosis during minimally invasive surgery remains a critical step and the complications are decisive for the immediate postoperative course. So far no clear consensus exists in the literature regarding the recommended techniques for placement of an anastomosis after resections in the upper gastrointestinal tract. This article summarizes and compares the various established anastomotic techniques used in minimally invasive esophageal and gastric surgery.

Prognostic significance of metastatic lymph node ratio in gastric cancer: a Western-center analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging is the central gastric cancer (GC) staging system, but it has some disadvantages. However, the lymph node ratio (LNR) can be used regardless of the type of lymphadenectomy and is considered an important prognostic factor. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between LNR and survival in patients who underwent curative GC surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent radical gastric surgery between January 2014 and June 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Clinicopathological features of tumors, TNM stage, and survival rates were analyzed. LNR was defined as the ratio between metastatic lymph nodes and total lymph nodes removed. The LNR groups were classified as follows: LNR0 = 0, 0.01 < LNR1 ≤ 0.1, 0.1 < LNR2 ≤ 0.25 and LNR3 > 0.25. Tumor characteristics and overall survival (OS) of the patients were compared between LNR groups.

RESULTS

After exclusion, 333 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 62 ± 14 years. According to the LNR classification, no difference was found between groups regarding age and sex. However, TNM stage III disease was significantly more common in LNR3 patients. Most patients (43.2%, n = 144) were in the LNR3 group. In terms of tumor characteristics (lymphatic, vascular, and perineural invasion), the LNR3 group had significantly poorer prognostic factors. The Cox regression model defined LNR3, TNM stage II-III disease, and advanced age as independent risk factors for survival. Patients with LNR3 demonstrated the lowest 5-year OS rate (35.7%) (estimated mean survival was 30 ± 1.9 months) compared to LNR 0-1-2.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that a high LNR was significantly associated with poor OS in patients who underwent curative gastrectomy. LNR can be used as an independent prognostic predictor in GC patients.