Robotic Surgery of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer—An Initial Experience

Recent Advances in the Diagnosis, Staging, Treatment, and Prognosis of Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Literature Review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide which results in malignant tumors in the digestive tract. The only radical treatment option available is surgical resection. Recently, the implementation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in 5-year survival rates of 95% for early gastric cancer. The main reason of treatment failure is that early diagnosis is minimal, with many patients presenting advanced stages. Hence, the greatest benefit of radical resection is missed. Consequently, the main therapeutic approach for advanced gastric cancer is combined surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. In this review, we will discuss the various treatment options for advanced gastric cancer. Clinical practice and clinical research is the most practical way of reaching new advents in terms of patients' characteristics, optimum drug choice, and better prognosis. With the recent advances in gastric cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment, and prognosis, we are evident that the improvement of survival in this patient population is just a matter of time.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been used for gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate whether RAG is safer and more effective than conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a manual search for these 2 types of operations (RAG and LAG) in the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to April 30, 2016. Twelve nonrandomized controlled trials that reported on RAG and LAG for gastric cancer were included. Outcomes evaluated included operation time, number of retrieved lymph nodes, blood loss, length of the resection margin, complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 3744 patients in 12 studies were included (1134 patients in the RAG group and 2610 patients in the LAG group). The operation time was significantly shorter in the LAG group [weighted mean difference (WMD) 42.0 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 28.11-55.89) minutes; P < .00001], while the loss of blood volume was lower in the RAG group (P = .01). The number of retrieved lymph nodes, duration of postoperative stay, length of the proximal resection margin, length of the distal resection margin, and postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that RAG is a safe and appropriate treatment for gastric cancer patients in comparison to LAG. Nevertheless, RAG is not superior to LAG. Future research on RAG should focus on comparing the differences in retrieved lymph nodes in different tiers, evaluating the postoperative recovery and reducing the cost of the treatment.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is a widely used minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer. However, skillful techniques are required to perform lymph node dissection using straight shaped forceps, particularly for D2 dissection. Robotic surgery using the da Vinci surgical system is anticipated to be a powerful tool for performing difficult techniques using high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) images and the EndoWrist equipped with seven degrees of freedom. Attempts are being made to apply robotic surgery in gastrectomy procedures mainly in Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Although definite superiority to laparoscopic gastrectomy is yet to be proven, robotic surgery has been reported to have a shorter learning curve and offer more precise dissection for total gastrectomy. Hence, its oncological efficacy needs to be verified in a clinical trial.

Robotic oncologic complexity score - a new tool for predicting complications in computer-enhanced oncologic surgery

BACKGROUND

While there is little doubt that robotic interventions have already opened new horizons in surgery due to its inherent complexity, there is still an unmet need for tools allowing center-to-center performance comparisons. A complexity score could be a valuable instrument for further research.

METHODS

The items of the robotic oncologic complexity score (ROCS) were based on risk factors identified in previous studies. We attempt to build the score and validate it on 400 consecutive cases of robotic oncologic surgery. The primary endpoint is to assess the value of ROCS in predicting major complications.

RESULTS

The mean ROCS in the group was 3.3(+/-1.4). Different correlations were calculated: the score and the complications (r=0.38), the major complications (r=0.42), Clavien grade (r=0.5), the operating time (r=0.35), and the length of stay (r=0.47). On the ROC-curve a score >4 has the best specificity and sensibility for predicting major complications (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

ROCS has potential in predicting complications and hospital length of stay, as well as a role in classifying oncologic robotic surgical interventions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

A phase II trial of post-operative chemoradiotherapy for completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy

The optimal post-operative adjuvant treatment for completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy remains controversial. The present study was a phase II trial on post-operative chemoradiotherapy in 30 patients with gastric cancer. Patients with stage II to IV (M0) gastric cancer received two cycles of chemotherapy prior to and following chemoradiotherapy. The chemotherapy consisted of a 2-h infusion of oxaliplatin (100 mg/m²) and folinic acid (100 mg/m²), which was followed by a 46-h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU; 2,400 mg/m²) through a portable pump, repeated every 3 weeks. The chemoradiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy of radiotherapy for 5 weeks and 5-FU continuous infusion (350 mg/m²/day). In total, 30 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent the chemoradiotherapy treatment as planned. A total of 10 (33.3%) patients relapsed; two (6.7%) locoregional relapses and mediastinum metastases, four (13.3%) peritoneal relapses, and four (13.3%) distant metastases. The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 72.7 and 65%, respectively. The toxicities of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, consisting of neutropenia, nausea and hand-foot syndrome, were observed. In conclusion, post-operative chemoradiotherapy following complete resection of gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy is feasible in a significant subset of patients.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is a technically feasible alternative to open and laparoscopic surgery, which is being more frequently used in general surgery. We undertook this review to investigate whether robotic assistance provides a significant benefit for oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for original English-language publications for robotic-assisted gastrectomy and oesophagectomy between January 1990 and October 2013.

RESULTS

Sixty-one publications were included. Thirty-five included gastrectomy, 31 included oesophagectomy and five included both operations. Several publications suggest that robot-assisted subtotal gastrectomy can be as safe and effective as an open or laparoscopic procedure, with equal outcomes with regard to the number of lymph nodes resected, overall morbidity and perioperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. Robotic assistance is associated with longer operation times but also with less blood loss in some reports. A significant benefit for robotic assistance has not been shown for the more extensive operations of oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy. There are very few oncologic data regarding local recurrence or long-term survival for any of the robotic operations.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in morbidity, mortality or number of lymph node harvested have been shown between robot-assisted and laparoscopic gastrectomy or oesophagectomy. Robotic surgery, with its relatively short learning curve, may facilitate reproducible minimally invasive surgery in this field but operation times are reportedly longer and cost differences remain unclear. Randomized trials with oncologic outcomes and cost comparisons are needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open resections for gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) has been developed in the hope of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of evidence in support of these ideals.

METHODS

A systematic review of the three operation types (RAG, LAG and OG) was carried out to evaluate short-term outcomes including duration of operation, retrieved lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, resection margin status, technical postoperative complications and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Nine non-randomized observational clinical studies involving 7200 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. RAG was associated with longer operating times than LAG and OG (weighted mean difference 61.99 and 65.73 min respectively; P ≤ 0.001). The number of retrieved lymph nodes and the resection margin length in RAG were comparable with those of LAG and OG. Estimated blood loss as significantly less in RAG than in OG (P = 0.002), but not LAG. Mean hospital stay for RAG was similar to that for LAG (P = 0.14). In contrast, hospital stay was significantly shorter, by a mean of 2.18 days, for RAG compared with OG (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were similar for all three operative approaches.

CONCLUSION

Short-term oncological outcomes of RAG were comparable with those of the other approaches. LAG was a shorter procedure and less expensive than RAG. Future studies involving RAG should focus on minimizing duration of operation and reducing cost.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 2495 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is being increasingly used to treat gastric cancer. However, there are still several technical disadvantages limiting its use. Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is an emerging minimally invasive technique that overcomes some of these limitations. This study compares RG with LG in the treatment of gastric cancer by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comparative studies published between January 1991 and April 2013 in the major databases were systematically searched. Evaluated end points were operative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine nonrandomized comparative studies with 2495 patients were included, of which 736 procedures were robotic and 1759 were laparoscopic. RG was associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter time to oral intake compared with LG. However, it was associated with a significantly longer operative time and shorter distal resection margin. In addition, there was no significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, rate of conversion to open surgery, overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RG is comparable to LG, with respect to safety, technical feasibility, and oncological effectiveness in the treatment of gastric cancer. However, there is a need for well-designed prospective randomized controlled studies comparing the two procedures with long-term follow-up, to inform future practice.