|
1
|
Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi W, Seo AN, Eom BW, Kang B, Kim BJ, Min BH, Tae CH, Choi CI, Lee CK, An HJ, Byun HK, Im HS, Kim HD, Cho JH, Pak K, Kim JJ, Bae JS, Yu JI, Lee JW, Choi J, Kim JH, Choi M, Jung MR, Seo N, Eom SS, Ahn S, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Lim SH, Kim TH, Han HS. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline). J Gastric Cancer 2025; 25:5-114. [PMID: 39822170 PMCID: PMC11739648 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2024] [Accepted: 12/24/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2025] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area. Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version. Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- In-Ho Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Joo Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wonyoung Choi
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - An Na Seo
- Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Bang Wool Eom
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Beodeul Kang
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Bum Jun Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang In Choi
- Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea
| | - Choong-Kun Lee
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ho Jung An
- Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea
| | - Hwa Kyung Byun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Su Im
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Hyung-Don Kim
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jang Ho Cho
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Kyoungjune Pak
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
| | - Jae-Joon Kim
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jae Seok Bae
- Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Jungyoon Choi
- Division of Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Korea
| | - Jwa Hoon Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Miyoung Choi
- National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Ran Jung
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Nieun Seo
- Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Soo Eom
- Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea
| | - Soomin Ahn
- Department of Pathology and Translational Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soo Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sung Hak Lee
- Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Hee Lim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae-Han Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea.
| | - Hye Sook Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Kim TH, Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi M, Kim BH, Eom BW, Kim BJ, Min BH, Choi CI, Shin CM, Tae CH, Gong CS, Kim DJ, Cho AEH, Gong EJ, Song GJ, Im HS, Ahn HS, Lim H, Kim HD, Kim JJ, Yu JI, Lee JW, Park JY, Kim JH, Song KD, Jung M, Jung MR, Son SY, Park SH, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Kim TY, Bae WK, Koom WS, Jee Y, Kim YM, Kwak Y, Park YS, Han HS, Nam SY, Kong SH. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach. J Gastric Cancer 2023; 23:3-106. [PMID: 36750993 PMCID: PMC9911619 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 129] [Impact Index Per Article: 64.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 01/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae-Han Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea
| | - In-Ho Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Joo Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Seoul, Seoul, Korea
| | - Miyoung Choi
- National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, Korea
| | - Baek-Hui Kim
- Department of Pathology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bang Wool Eom
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Bum Jun Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang In Choi
- Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan, Korea
| | - Cheol Min Shin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seungnam, Korea
| | - Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Woman's University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung Sik Gong
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center and University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | | | - Eun Jeong Gong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Geum Jong Song
- Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Su Im
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Hye Seong Ahn
- Department of Surgery, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Lim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, University of Hallym College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Hyung-Don Kim
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Joon Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University, College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Ji Yeon Park
- Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jwa Hoon Kim
- Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyoung Doo Song
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minkyu Jung
- Division of Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Ran Jung
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Sang-Yong Son
- Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Shin-Hoo Park
- Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soo Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sung Hak Lee
- Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae-Yong Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Kyun Bae
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Woong Sub Koom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yeseob Jee
- Department of Surgery, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Yoo Min Kim
- Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoonjin Kwak
- Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Suk Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hye Sook Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
| | - Su Youn Nam
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
| | - Seong-Ho Kong
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine Cancer Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Rawicz-Pruszyński K, Mielko J, Ciseł B, Skórzewska M, Pikuła A, Gęca K, Skoczylas T, Kubiatowski T, Kurylcio A, Polkowski WP. Blast from the past: Perioperative use of the Maruyama computer program for prediction of lymph node involvement in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019; 45:1957-1963. [PMID: 31178298 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2019] [Revised: 04/13/2019] [Accepted: 06/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical quality assurance is a key element of gastric cancer treatment. The Maruyama Computer Program (MCP) allows to predict lymph node involvement in stations no. 1-16. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the accuracy of the MCP predictions in GC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCTH) followed by gastrectomy with adequate lymphadenectomy. METHODS 101 patients who underwent preoperative nCTH followed by D2 gastrectomy with curative intent were analysed. The response to nCTH was measured using the tumour regression grade system. RESULTS Test sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the MCP were 92%, 33%, 41%, 89%, and 53%, respectively. In patients with response to nCTH, number of false positive (FP) results was significantly higher than in patients who did not respond to nCTH both in the N1 (56.3% vs 28.9%, p < 0.0001) and in the N2 (59% vs 41%, p < 0.0001) trier. The risk for FP results was 6 times higher in N1 (OR = 6.50, 95%CI: 3.91-10.82,; p < 0.0001) and N2 (OR = 5.84, 95%CI: 2.85-11.96; p < 0.0001) triers. In patients with intestinal type GC, the risk for FP results was 4 times higher than in other histologic types of GC in both N1 (OR = 4.23, 95%CI: 2.58-6.95; p < 0.0001) and N2 (OR = 4.23, 95%CI: 2.02-9.62; p = 0.0002) triers. CONCLUSIONS MCP predictions in the GC patients treated with nCTH have low specificity due to significantly high number of FP results. Noticeably low accuracy level of predictions indicate a need for new prediction models, based on Laurén classification, since it may provide some information on expected regression grade.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karol Rawicz-Pruszyński
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Jerzy Mielko
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Bogumiła Ciseł
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Magdalena Skórzewska
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Agnieszka Pikuła
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Katarzyna Gęca
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Tomasz Skoczylas
- 2nd Department and Clinic of General, Gastroenterological and Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, Staszica 16 St., 20-081, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Tomasz Kubiatowski
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St. John of Dukla Lublin Region Cancer Center, Jaczewskiego 7 St., 20-090, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Andrzej Kurylcio
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| | - Wojciech Piotr Polkowski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłowska 13 St., 20-080, Lublin, Poland.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Oh SY, Lee HJ, Yang HK. Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. J Gastric Cancer 2016; 16:63-71. [PMID: 27433390 PMCID: PMC4944004 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2016.16.2.63] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2016] [Accepted: 05/23/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a function-preserving surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC), aiming to decrease the complication rate and improve postoperative quality of life. According to the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines, PPG can be performed for cT1N0M0 gastric cancer located in the middle-third of the stomach, at least 4.0 cm away from the pylorus. Although the length of the antral cuff gradually increased, from 1.5 cm during the initial use of the procedure to 3.0 cm currently, its optimal length still remains unclear. Standard procedures for the preservation of pyloric function, infra-pyloric vessels, and hepatic branch of the vagus nerve, make PPG technically more difficult and raise concerns about incomplete lymph node dissection. The short- and long-term oncological and survival outcomes of PPG were comparable to those for distal gastrectomy, but with several advantages such as a lower incidence of dumping syndrome, bile reflux, and gallstone formation, and improved nutritional status. Gastric stasis, a typical complication of PPG, can be effectively treated by balloon dilatation and stent insertion. Robot-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy is feasible for EGC in the middle-third of the stomach in terms of the short-term clinical outcome. However, any benefits over laparoscopy-assisted PPG (LAPPG) from the patient's perspective have not yet been proven. An ongoing Korean multicenter randomized controlled trial (KLASS-04), which compares LAPPG and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for EGC in the middle-third of the stomach, may provide more clear evidence about the advantages and oncologic safety of PPG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung-Young Oh
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyuk-Joon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.; Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Han-Kwang Yang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.; Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Tóth D, Plósz J, Török M. Clinical significance of lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 8:136-146. [PMID: 26909128 PMCID: PMC4753164 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v8.i2.136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2015] [Revised: 08/13/2015] [Accepted: 12/18/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Approximately thirty percent of patients with gastric cancer undergo an avoidable lymph node dissection with a higher rate of postoperative complication. Comparing the D1 and D2 dissections, it was found that there is a significant difference in morbidity, favoured D1 dissection without any difference in overall survival. Subgroup analysis of patients with T3 tumor shows a survival difference favoring D2 lymphadenectomy, and there is a better gastric cancer-related death and non-statistically significant improvement of survival for node-positive disease in patients with D2 dissection. However, the extended lymphadenectomy could improve stage-specific survival owing to the stage migration phenomenon. The deployment of centralization and application of national guidelines could improve the surgical outcomes. The Japanese and European guidelines enclose the D2 lymphadenectomy as the gold standard in R0 resection. In the individualized, stage-adapted gastric cancer surgery the Maruyama computer program (MCP) can estimate lymph node involvement preoperatively with high accuracy and in addition the Maruyama Index less than 5 has a better impact on survival, than D-level guided surgery. For these reasons, the preoperative application of MCP is recommended routinely, with an aim to perform “low Maruyama Index surgery”. The sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) may decrease the number of redundant lymphadenectomy intraoperatively with a high detection rate (93.7%) and an accuracy of 92%. More accurate stage-adapted surgery could be performed using the MCP and SNB in parallel fashion in gastric cancer.
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Han DS, Suh YS, Ahn HS, Kong SH, Lee HJ, Kim WH, Yang HK. Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopy-Assisted Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 22:2323-8. [PMID: 25361887 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4204-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2014] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The three-dimensional view and articulating devices in robot system might have a benefit performing the delicate procedure of pylorus-preserving gastrectomy. This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (RAPPG) and to compare the perioperative outcomes and oncologic safety between RAPPG and laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LAPPG) for middle-third early gastric cancer. METHODS Between June 2008 and December 2013, we retrospectively collected data of 68 patients with RAPPG and propensity score matched 68 patients with LAPPG for the treatment of early gastric cancer at Seoul National University Hospital. The covariates for propensity score matching were: age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and operators. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS All RAPPG cases were performed successfully without open or laparoscopic conversion. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes did not differ between the two groups except in operation time (258.3 vs. 193.9 min; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (19.1 vs. 22.1 %; P = 0.671). The mean number of examined lymph nodes (33.4 vs. 36.5; P = 0.153), and the mean number of lymph nodes at each station was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS RAPPG can be a safe treatment option for middle-third early gastric cancer in terms of surgical complications and oncologic outcomes. However, RAPPG has no benefit over LAPPG in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dong-Seok Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy is better than laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for middle-third early gastric cancer. Ann Surg 2014; 259:485-93. [PMID: 23652333 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318294d142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical, oncologic safety and the nutritional, functional benefit of laparoscopy-assisted pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (LAPPG) with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for middle-third early gastric cancers (EGC). BACKGROUND Of those patients with middle-third EGC, it is still difficult to determine which procedure is better between LADG and LAPPG despite alleged advantages of LAPPG. METHODS For middle-third EGC, a retrospective analysis was performed comparing those who underwent LADG and those who underwent LAPPG. To evaluate surgical and oncologic safety, clinicopathologic differences including the postoperative morbidity, the pattern of lymph node metastasis and recurrence were analyzed. Postoperative protein, albumin, quantification of abdominal fat area using abdomen computed tomography, and the incidence of postoperative gallstone were compared for the evaluation of functional advantages. RESULTS The overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between LADG (n = 176) and LAPPG (n = 116). Delayed gastric emptying was less frequent in LADG than in LAPPG (1.7% vs 7.8%); however, the rates of all the other complications were significantly higher in LADG than in LAPPG (17.0% vs 7.8%). The number of examined lymph nodes and metastatic lymph nodes at each lymph node station was not significantly different and 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were also similar between LADG and LAPPG (98.8% vs 98.2%). Decreases in serum protein and albumin in postoperative 1 to 6 months and abdominal fat area in postoperative 1 year were significantly greater in LADG than in LAPPG. The 3-year cumulative incidence of gallstone was significantly higher in LADG than in LAPPG (6.5% vs 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS For middle-third EGC, LAPPG can be considered as a better treatment option than LADG in terms of nutritional advantage and lower incidence of gallstone.
Collapse
|