Article

A prospective randomized study comparing open versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer.

Department of General Surgery, 150 Central Hospital of PLA, Luoyang City, China.
Digestive surgery (Impact Factor: 1.37). 09/2011; 28(5-6):331-7. DOI: 10.1159/000330782
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In recent years, many clinical studies have confirmed the value of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) in gastric cancer surgery, especially in early stages. But the safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer are still in debate. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare open versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer.
For this study, 123 patients who had been diagnosed endoscopically with gastric cancer were randomly assigned to either LAG (n = 61) or open gastrectomy (OG) (n = 62) which ran from March 2008 to December 2009. Clinical characteristics, operative findings, postoperative recovery, morbidity, pathological report and survival rate were compared. D2 lymph node dissection was performed in 49 patients in the LAG group and 47 patients in the OG group with advanced gastric cancer. We adopt sub-group analysis in this paper.
The clinical characteristics of patients in the LAG and OG groups who were in the advanced stage, included age, sex, BMI and concurrent illness, and their ECOG scores were well matched. Operative findings, postoperative recovery, morbidity, pathological findings including tumor location, depth of invasion, TNM stage, histological grade and surgical extension in the two groups were also similar. Compared to the OG group, the mean operating time was significantly longer for the LAG group (267.88 ± 54.284 min in the LAG group vs. 182.02 ± 41.016 min in the OG group, p = 6.383 × 10(-13)); the mean number of days when body temperature exceeded 37°C was significantly shorter in the LAG group (p = 6.34 × 10(-8)). There were no postoperative deaths in both the groups. The postoperative morbidity rate was 12.24% in the LAG group and 19.15% in the OG group with no significant difference (p = 0.357). However, pulmonary infection was observed more frequently in the OG group (p = 0.038). After a mean follow-up of 22.1354 months (from 4 to 36 months), 14 and 15 patients died of gastric cancer in the LAG and OG groups, respectively. Two and one patient died of nongastric cancer in the LAG and OG groups, respectively. The overall survival rates were 67.1% and 53.8% in the LAG and OG groups, respectively. The estimated mean survival time was 29.387 months in the LAG group and 28.978 months in the OG group. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall survival rate for patients in both groups - LAG and OG (log-rank test, p = 0.911, Tarone Ware test, p = 0.994, and Breslow test, p = 0. 961).
LAG with D2 lymph node dissection is a safe and feasible procedure with adequate lymphadenectomy, good curability and survival rate for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
114 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data on laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer in the Western hemisphere are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes following laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma at a Western center. Eighty-seven consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy from November 2005 to April 2013 were compared with 87 patients undergoing open resection during the same time period. Patients were matched for age, stage, body mass index, and procedure (distal subtotal vs. total gastrectomy). Endpoints were short- and long-term perioperative outcomes. Overall, 65 patients (37 %) had locally advanced disease, and 40 (23 %) had proximal tumors. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operative time (median 240 vs.165 min; p < 0.01), less blood loss (100 vs.150 mL; p < 0.01), higher rate of microscopic margin positivity (9 vs.1 %; p = 0.04), decreased duration of narcotic and epidural use (2 vs. 4 days, p = 0.04, and 3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.02, respectively), decreased minor complications in the early (27 vs. 16 %) and late (17 vs. 7 %) postoperative periods (p < 0.01), decreased length of stay (5 vs. 7 days; p = 0.01), and increased likelihood of receiving adjuvant therapy (82 vs. 51 %; p < 0.01). There was no difference in the number of lymph nodes retrieved (median 20 in both groups), major morbidity, or 30-day mortality. Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma is safe and effective for select patients in the West.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 01/2015; · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After the widespread application of minimally invasive surgery for benign diseases and given its proven safety and efficacy, minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer has gained substantial attention in the past several years. Despite the large number of publications on the topic and level I evidence to support its use in colon cancer, minimally invasive surgery for most gastrointestinal malignancies is still underused. We explore some of the challenges that face the fusion of minimally invasive surgery technology in the management of gastrointestinal malignancies and propose solutions that may help increase the utilization in the future. These solutions are based on extensive literature review, observation of current trends and practices in this field, and discussion made with experts in the field. We propose 4 different solutions to increase the use of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies: collaboration between surgical oncologists/hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and minimally invasive surgeons at the same institution; a single surgeon performing 2 fellowships in surgical oncology/hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and minimally invasive surgery; establishing centers of excellence in minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer management; and finally, using robotic technology to help with complex laparoscopic skills. Multiple studies have confirmed the utility of minimally invasive surgery techniques in dealing with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. However, training continues to be the most important challenge that faces the use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of gastrointestinal malignancy; implementation of our proposed solutions may help increase the rate of adoption in the future.
    JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 10/2014; 18(4). · 0.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic (LGD2) and open D2 gastrectomies (OGD2) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LGD2 with OGD2 for AGC treatment, published between 1 January 2000 and 12 January 2013, were identified in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints included operative outcomes (operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and conversion rate), postoperative outcomes (postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay length, postoperative morbidity, incidence of reoperation, and postoperative mortality), and oncologic outcomes (the number of lymph nodes harvested, tumor recurrence and metastasis, disease-free rates, and overall survival rates). The Cochrane Collaboration tools and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of RCTs and non-RCTs in the study. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the incidence rate of various postoperative morbidities as well as recurrence and metastasis patterns. A Begg's test was used to evaluate the publication bias. One RCT and 13 non-RCTs totaling 2596 patients were included in the meta-analysis. LGD2 in comparison to OGD2 showed lower intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -137.87 mL, 95%CI: -164.41--111.33; P < 0.01], lower analgesic consumption (WMD = -1.94, 95%CI: -2.50--1.38; P < 0.01), shorter times to first ambulation (WMD = -1.03 d, 95%CI: -1.90--0.16; P < 0.05), flatus (WMD = -0.98 d, 95%CI: -1.30--0.66; P < 0.01), and oral intake (WMD = -0.85 d, 95%CI: -1.67--0.03; P < 0.05), shorter hospitalization (WMD = -3.08 d, 95%CI: -4.38--1.78; P < 0.01), and lower postoperative morbidity (odds ratio = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.61-0.99; P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between LGD2 and OGD2 for the following criteria: reoperation incidence, postoperative mortality, number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor recurrence/metastasis, or three- or five-year disease-free and overall survival rates. However, LGD2 had longer operative times (WMD = 57.06 min, 95%CI: 41.87-72.25; P < 0.01). Although a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, LGD2 may be safe and effective, and offer some advantages over OGD2 for treatment of locally AGC.
    World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 11/2014; 20(44):16750-64.