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 diseasefree 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.

3D laparoscopic-assisted vs open gastrectomy for carcinoma in the remnant stomach: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Three-dimensional(3D) laparoscopic technique has gradually been applied to the treatment of carcinoma in the remnant stomach(CRS), but its clinical efficacy remains controversial.AIM To compare the short-term and long-term results of 3D laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy(3DLAG) with open gastrectomy(OG) for CRS.METHODS The clinical data of patients diagnosed with CRS and admitted to the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were retrospectively collected. A total of 84 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled. All their clinical data were collected and a database was established. All patients were treated with 3DLAG or OG by experienced surgeons and were divided into two groups based on the different surgical methods mentioned above. By using outpatient and telephone follow-up,we were able to determine postoperative survival and tumor status. The postoperative short-term efficacy and 1-year and 3-year overall survival(OS) rates were compared between the two groups.RESULTS Among 84 patients with CRS, 48 were treated with OG and 36 with 3DLAG. All patients successfully completed surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, ASA score,initial disease state(benign or malignant), primary surgical anastomosis method,interval time of carcinogenesis, and tumorigenesis site. Patients in the 3DLAG group experienced less intraoperative blood loss(188.33 ± 191.35 mL vs 305.83 ± 303.66 mL;P =0.045) and smaller incision(10.86 ± 3.18 cm vs 20.06 ± 5.17 cm;P < 0.001) than those in the OG group. 3DLAGC was a more minimally invasive method. 3DLAGC retrieved significantly more lymph nodes than OG(14.0 ± 7.17 vs 10.73 ± 6.82;P = 0.036), whereas the number of positive lymph nodes did not differ between the two groups(1.56 ± 2.84 vs 2.35 ± 5.28;P = 0.413). The complication rate(8.3% vs 20.8%;P = 0.207) and intensive care unit admission rate(5.6% vs 14.5%;P = 0.372) were equivalent between the two groups. In terms of postoperative recovery, the 3DLAGC group had a lower visual analog score, shorter indwelling time of gastric and drainage tubes, shorter time of early off-bed motivation, shorter time of postoperative initial flatus and initial soft diet intake, shorter postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay, and there were significant differences, showing better short-term efficacy. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of OG group were 83.2% [95% confidence interval(CI): 72.4%-95.6%] and 73.3%(95%CI: 60.0%-89.5%)respectively. The 1-year and 3-year OS rates of the 3DLAG group were 87.3%(95%CI: 76.4%-99.8%) and 75.6%(95%CI: 59.0%-97.0%), respectively. However, the 1-year and 3-year OS rates were similar between the two groups, which suggested that long-term survival results were comparable between the two groups(P = 0.68).CONCLUSION Compared with OG, 3DLAG for CRS achieved better short-term efficacy and equivalent oncological results without increasing clinical complications. 3DLAG for CRS can be promoted safely and effectively in selected patients.

Laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant therapy:A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic total gastrectomy(LTG)has drawn increasing attention over the years.Although LTG has shown surgical benefits compared to open TG(OTG)in early stage gastric cancer(GC),little is known about the surgical and oncological outcomes of LTG for advanced GC following neoadjuvant therapy(NAT).AIM To compare the long-and short-term outcomes of advanced GC patients who underwent LTG vs OTG following NAT.METHODS Advanced GC patients who underwent TG following NAT between April 2011 and May 2018 at the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences were enrolled and stratified into two groups:LTG and OTG.Propensity score matching analysis was performed at a 1:1 ratio to overcome possible bias.RESULTS In total,185 patients were enrolled(LTG:78;OTG:109).Of these,138 were paired after propensity score matching.After adjustment for propensity score matching,baseline parameters were similar between the two groups.Compared to OTG,LTG was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay(P=0.012).The rates of R0 resection,lymph node harvest,and postoperative morbidity did not significantly differ between the two groups.Overall survival(OS)outcomes were comparable between the two groups.Pathological T and N stages were found to be independent risk factors for OS.CONCLUSION LTG can be a feasible method for advanced GC patients following NAT,as it appears to be associated with better short-and comparable long-term outcomes compared to OTG.

Laparoscopic-assisted vs open transhiatal gastrectomy for Siewert type Ⅱ adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND The studies of laparoscopic-assisted transhiatal gastrectomy(LTG) in patients with Siewert type Ⅱ adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction(AEG) are scarce.AIM To compare the surgical efficiency of LTG with the open transhiatal gastrectomy(OTG) for patients with Siewert type Ⅱ AEG.METHODS We retrospectively evaluated a total of 578 patients with Siewert type Ⅱ AEG who have undergone LTG or OTG at the First Medical Center of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital from January 2014 to December 2019. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the LTG(n = 382) and OTG(n = 196) groups.RESULTS Compared with the OTG group, the LTG group had a longer operative time but less blood loss, shorter length of abdominal incision and an increased number of harvested lymph nodes(P < 0.05). Patients in the LTG group were able to eat liquid food, ambulate, expel flatus and discharge sooner than the OTG group(P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in postoperative complications and R0 resection. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival performed better in the LTG group compared with that in the OTG group(88.2% vs 79.2%, P = 0.011;79.7% vs 73.0%, P = 0.002, respectively). In the stratified analysis, both overall survival and disease-free survival were better in the LTG group than those in the OTG group for stage Ⅱ/Ⅲ patients(P < 0.05) but not for stage I patients.CONCLUSION For patients with Siewert type Ⅱ AEG, LTG is associated with better short-term outcomes and similar oncology safety. In addition, patients with advanced stage AEG may benefit more from LTG in the long-term outcomes.