Verlato G, Giacopuzzi S, Bencivenga M, Morgagni P, Manzoni GD. Problems faced by evidence-based medicine in evaluating lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.
World J Gastroenterol 2014;
20:12883-12891. [PMID:
25278685 PMCID:
PMC4177470 DOI:
10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12883]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2013] [Revised: 03/06/2014] [Accepted: 04/16/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer surgical management differs between Eastern Asia and Western countries. Extended lymphadenectomy (D2) is the standard of care in Japan and South Korea since decades, while the majority of United States patients receive at most a limited lymphadenectomy (D1). United States and Northern Europe are considered the scientific leaders in medicine and evidence-based procedures are the cornerstone of their clinical practice. However, surgeons in Eastern Asia are more experienced, as there are more new cases of gastric cancer in Japan (107898 in 2012) than in the entire European Union (81592), or in South Korea (31269) than in the entire United States (21155). For quite a long time evidence-based medicine (EBM) did not solve the question whether D2 improves long-term prognosis with respect to D1. Indeed, eastern surgeons were reluctant to perform D1 even in the frame of a clinical trial, as their patients had a very good prognosis after D2. Evidence-based surgical indications provided by Western trials were questioned, as surgical procedures could not be properly standardized. In the present study we analyzed indications about the optimal extension of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer according to current scientific literature (2008-2012) and surgical guidelines. We searched PubMed for papers using the key words “lymphadenectomy or D1 or D2” AND “gastric cancer” from 2008 to 2012. Moreover, we reviewed national guidelines for gastric cancer management. The support to D2 lymphadenectomy increased progressively from 2008 to 2012: since 2010 papers supporting D2 have achieved a higher overall impact factor than the other papers. Till 2011, D2 was the procedure of choice according to experts’ opinion, while three meta-analyses found no survival advantage after D2 with respect to D1. In 2012-2013, however, two meta-analyses reported that D2 improves prognosis with respect to D1. D2 lymphadenectomy was proposed as the standard of care for advanced gastric cancer by Japanese National Guidelines since 1981 and was adopted as the standard procedure by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer since the Nineties. D2 is now indicated as the standard of surgical treatment with curative intent by the German, British and ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO guidelines. At variance American NCCN guidelines recommend a D1+ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection. In conclusion, D2 lymphadenectomy, originally developed by Eastern surgeons, is now becoming the procedure of choice also in the West. In gastric cancer surgery EBM is lagging behind national guidelines, rather than preceding and orienting them. To eliminate this lag, EBM should value to a larger extent Eastern Asian literature and should evaluate not only the quality of the study design but also the quality of surgical procedures.
Collapse