Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies

Minimally Invasive Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Gastric Cancer with Splenic Metastasis and Splenic Vein Tumor Thrombus: A Case Report

While the importance of conversion surgery has increased with the development of systemic chemotherapy for gastric cancer (GC), reports of conversion surgery for patients with GC with distant metastasis and tumor thrombus are extremely scarce, and a definitive surgical strategy has yet to be established. Herein, we report a 67-year-old man with left abdominal pain referred to our hospital following a diagnosis of unresectable GC. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) revealed advanced GC with splenic metastasis. A splenic vein tumor thrombus (SVTT) and a continuous thrombus to the main trunk of the portal vein were detected. The patient was treated with anticoagulation therapy and systemic chemotherapy comprising S-1 and oxaliplatin. One year following chemotherapy initiation, a CT scan revealed progressive disease (PD); therefore, the chemotherapy regimen was switched to ramucirumab with paclitaxel. After 10 courses of chemotherapy resulting in primary tumor and SVTT shrinkage, the patient underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) and distal pancreaticosplenectomy (DPS). He was discharged without complications and remained alive 6 months postoperatively without recurrence. In summary, the wait-and-see approach was effective in a patient with GC with splenic metastasis and SVTT, ultimately leading to an R0 resection performed via LTG and DPS.

Minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A pooled analysis of two European randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive techniques have shown better short term and similar oncological outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer in Asian countries. It remains unknown whether these outcomes can be extrapolated to Western countries, where patients often present with advanced gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pooled analysis of two Western randomized controlled trials (STOMACH and LOGICA trial) comparing minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in advanced gastric cancer was performed. Postoperative recovery (complications, mortality, hospital stay), oncological outcomes (lymph node yield, radical resection rate, 1-year survival), and quality of life was assessed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-one patients were included from both trials. Of these, 162 patients (50.5%) were allocated to MIG and 159 patients (49.5%) to OG. A significant difference was seen in blood loss in favor of MIG (150 vs. 260 mL, p < 0.001), whereas duration of surgery was in favor of OG (180 vs. 228.5 min, p = 0.005). Postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes and quality of life were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

MIG showed no difference to OG regarding postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes or quality of life, and is therefore a safe alternative to OG in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of early gastric cancer. However, its role in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs open gastrectomy (OG) after NAT for the treatment of LAGC.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of LG vs OG after NAT for LAGC.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 76 patients with LAGC who underwent NAT followed by LG (n = 38) or OG (n = 38) between 2021 and 2023. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), surgical complications, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up period of 24 mo. The 3-year OS rates in the LG and OG groups were 68.4% and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.42). The 3-year DFS rates in the LG and OG groups were 57.9% and 50.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The LG group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (P = 0.04) than the OG group. There were no significant differences in other surgical complications between the groups, including anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, or wound dehiscence. The LG group had significantly better QOL scores than the OG group regarding physical functioning, role functioning, global health status, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and body image at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LG after NAT is a viable and safe alternative to OG for the treatment of LAGC, with similar survival outcomes and superior short-term recovery and QOL. LG patients had less blood loss, shorter hospitalizations, and a lower incidence of surgical site infections than OG patients. Moreover, the LG group had better QOL scores in multiple domains 6 mo postoperatively. Therefore, LG should be considered a valid option for patients with LAGC who undergo NAT, particularly for those who prioritize postoperative recovery and QOL.