Fast-track surgery could improve postoperative recovery in radical total gastrectomy patients

AIM: To assess the impact of fast-track surgery (FTS) on hospital stay, cost of hospitalization and complications after radical total gastrectomy. METHODS: A randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted from November 2011 to August 2012 in the Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, the Fourth Military Medical University. A total of 122 gastric cancer patients who met the selection criteria were randomized into FTS and conventional care groups on the first day of hospitalization. All patients received elective standard D2 total gastrectomy. Clinical outcomes, including duration of flatus and defecation, white blood cell count, postoperative pain, duration of postoperative stay, cost of hospitalization and complications were recorded and evaluated.Two specially trained doctors who were blinded to the treatment were in charge of evaluating postoperative outcomes, discharge and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients finished the study, including 60 patients in the conventional care group and 59 patients in the FTS group. Two patients were excluded from the FTS group due to withdrawal of consent. One patient was excluded from the conventional care group because of a non-resectable tumor. Compared with the conventional group, FTS shortened the duration of flatus (79.03 ± 20.26 hvs 60.97 ± 24.40 h, P = 0.000) and duration of defecation (93.03 ± 27.95 h vs 68.00 ± 25.42 h, P = 0.000), accelerated the decrease in white blood cell count [P < 0.05 on postoperative day (POD) 3 and 4], alleviated pain in patients after surgery (P < 0.05 on POD 1, 2 and 3), reduced complications (P < 0.05), shortened the duration of postoperative stay (7.10 ± 2.13 dvs 5.68 ± 1.22 d,P = 0.000), reduced the cost of hospitalization (43783.25 ± 8102.36 RMBvs 39597.62 ± 7529.98 RMB,P = 0.005), and promoted recovery of patients. CONCLUSION: FTS could be safely applied in radical total gastrectomy to accelerate clinical recovery of gastric cancer patients.     

Fast-track rehabilitation vs conventional care in laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy: A meta-analysis

AIM:To evaluate the fast-track rehabilitation protocol and laparoscopic surgery(LFT)vs conventional care strategies and laparoscopic surgery(LCC).METHODS:Studies and relevant literature comparing the effects of LFT and LCC for colorectal malignancy were identified in MEDLINE,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE.The complications and re-admission after approximately 1 mo were assessed.RESULTS:Six recent randomized controlled trials(RCTs)were included in this meta-analysis,which related to 655 enrolled patients.These studies demonstrated that compared with LCC,LFT has fewer complications and a similar incidence of re-admission after approximately 1 mo.LFT had a pooled RR of 0.60(95%CI:0.46-0.79,P<0.001)compared with a pooled RR of 0.69(95%CI:0.34-1.40,P>0.5)for LCC.CONCLUSION:LFT for colorectal malignancy is safe and efficacious.Larger prospective RCTs should be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of this approach.     

Improving the outcomes in gastric cancer surgery

Gastric cancer remains a significant health problem worldwide and surgery is currently the only potentially curative treatment option. Gastric cancer surgery is generally considered to be high risk surgery and five-year survival rates are poor, therefore a continuous strive to improve outcomes for these patients is warranted. Fortunately, in the last decades several potential advances have been introduced that intervene at various stages of the treatment process. This review provides an overview of methods implemented in pre-, intra- and postoperative stage of gastric cancer surgery to improve outcome. Better preoperative risk assessment using comorbidity index (e.g., Charlson comorbidity index), assessment of nutritional status (e.g., short nutritional assessment questionnaire, nutritional risk screening - 2002) and frailty assessment (Groningen frailty indicator, Edmonton frail scale, Hopkins frailty) was introduced. Also preoperative optimization of patients using prehabilitation has future potential. Implementation of fast-track or enhanced recovery after surgery programs is showing promising results, although future studies have to determine what the exact optimal strategy is. Introduction of laparoscopic surgery has shown improvement of results as well as optimization of lymph node dissection. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has not shown to be beneficial in peritoneal metastatic disease thus far. Advances in postoperative care include optimal timing of oral diet, which has been shown to reduce hospital stay. In general, hospital volume, i.e., centralization, and clinical audits might further improve the outcome in gastric cancer surgery. In conclusion, progress has been made in improving the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. However, gastric cancer treatment is high risk surgery and many areas for future research remain.     

Minimally invasive surgery in gastric cancer

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer has rapidly gained popularity due to the early detection of early gastric cancer. As advances in instruments and the accumulation of laparoscopic experience increase, laparoscopic techniques are being used for less invasive but highly technical procedures. Recent evidence suggests that the short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer are comparable to those of conventional open surgery. However, these results should be confirmed by large-scale multicenter prospective randomized controlled clinical trials.     

Laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer:A meta-analysis

AIM:To conduct a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic total gastrectomy(LTG)with open total gastrectomy(OTG)for the treatment of gastric cancer.METHODS:Major databases such as Medline(PubMed),Embase,Academic Search Premier(EBSCO),Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)in The Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing LTG and OTG from January 1994 to May 2013.Evaluated endpoints were operative,postoperative and oncological outcomes.Operative outcomes included operative time and intraoperative blood loss.Postoperative recovery included time to first fatus,time to first oral intake,hospital stay and analgesics use.Postoperative complications comprised morbidity,anastomotic leakage,anastomotic stenosis,ileus,bleeding,abdominal abscess,wound problems and mortality.Oncological outcomes included positive resection margins,number of retrieved lymph nodes,and proximal and distal resection margins.The pooled effect was calculated using either a fixed effects or a random effects model.RESULTS:Fifteen non-randomized comparative studies with 2022 patients were included(LTG-811,OTG-1211).Both groups had similar short-term oncological outcomes,analgesic use(WMD-0.09;95%CI:-2.39-2.20;P=0.94)and mortality(OR=0.74;95%CI:0.24-2.31;P=0.61).However,LTG was associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss(WMD-201.19 mL;95%CI:-296.50--105.87 mL;P<0.0001)and overall complication rate(OR=0.73;95%CI:0.57-0.92;P=0.009);fewer wound-related complications(OR=0.39;95%CI:0.21-0.72;P=0.002);a quicker recovery of gastrointestinal motility with shorter time to frst fatus(WMD-0.82;95%CI:-1.18--0.45;P<0.0001)and oral intake(WMD-1.30;95%CI:-1.84--0.75;P<0.00001);and a shorter hospital stay(WMD-3.55;95%CI:-5.13--1.96;P<0.0001),albeit with a longer operation time(WMD 48.25 min;95%CI:31.15-65.35;P<0.00001),as compared with OTG.CONCLUSION:LTG is safe and effective,and may offer some advantages over OTG in the treatment of gastric cancer.     

Surgical care quality and oncologic outcome after D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer

AIM: To examine the quality of surgical care and longterm oncologic outcome after D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer.METHODS: From 1999 to 2008, a total of 109 consecutive patients underwent D2 gastrectomy without routine pancreaticosplenectomy in a multimodal setting at our institution. Oncologic outcomes together with clinical and histopathologic data were analyzed in relation to the type of surgery performed. Staging was carried out according to the Union for International Cancer Control criteria of 2002. Patients were followedup for five years at the outpatient clinic. The primary measure of outcome was long-term survival with the quality of surgery as a secondary outcome measure. Clinical data were retrospectively collected from the patient records, and causes of death were obtained from national registries.RESULTS: A total of 109 patients(58 men) with a mean age of 67.4 ± 11.2 years underwent total gastrectomy or gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection. The tumor stage distribution was as follows: stageⅠ,(27/109) 24.8%; stage Ⅱ,(31/109) 28.4%; stage Ⅲ,(41/109) 37.6%; and stage Ⅳ,(10/109) 9.2%. Forty patients(36.7%) received chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. The five-year overall survival rate for all 109 patients was 45.0%, and was 47.1% for the 104 patients treated with curative R0 resection. The five-year disease-specific survival rates were 53.0% and 55.8%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, body mass index and tumor stage were independent prognostic factors for overall survival(both P 0.01), whereas body mass index, tumor stage, tumor site, Lauren classification, and lymph node invasion were prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival(all P 0.05). Postoperative 30-d mortality was 1.8% and 30-d, surgical(including three anastomotic leaks, two of which were treated conservatively), and general morbidities were 26.6%, 12.8%, and 14.7%, respectively.CONCLUSION: D2 dissection is a safe surgical option for gastric cancer, providing quality surgical care and long-term oncologic outcomes that are in line with current Western standards.     

New-style laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric stromal tumors

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new style of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), an improved method of laparoscopic intragastric surgery (LIGS) for the treatment of gastric stromal tumors (GSTs). METHODS: Six patients were treated with the newstyle LECS. Surgery was performed according to the following procedures: (1) Exposing and confirming the location of the tumor with gastroscopy; (2) A laparoscopy light was placed in the cavity using the trocar at the navel, and the other two trocars penetrated both the abdominal and stomach walls; (3) With gastroscopy monitoring, the operation was carried out in the gastric lumen using laparoscopic instruments and the tumor was resected; and (4) The tumor tissue was removed orally using a gastroscopy basket, and puncture holes and perforations were sutured using titanium clips. RESULTS: Tumor size ranged from 2.0 to 4.5 cm (average 3.50 ± 0.84 cm). The operative time ranged from 60 to 130 min (average 83.33 ± 26.58 min). Blood loss was less than 20 mL and hospital stay ranged from 6 to 8 d (average 6.67 ± 0.82 d). The patients were allowed out of bed 12 h later. A stomach tube was inserted for 72 h after surgery, and a liquid diet was then taken. All cases had single tumors which were completely resected using the new-style LECS. No postoperative complications occurred. Pathology of all resected specimens showed GST: no cases of implantation or metastasis were found.CONCLUSION: New-style LECS for GSTs is a quick, optimized, fast recovery, safe and effective therapy.     

Application of enhanced recovery after gastric cancer surgery: An updated meta-analysis

AIM To provide an updated assessment of the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocols in elective gastric cancer(GC) surgery.METHODS Pub Med, Medline, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Trial Register, and Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2017 for all available randomized controlled trials(RCTs) comparing ERAS protocols and standard care(SC) in GC surgery. Thirteen RCTs, with a total of 1092 participants, were analyzed in this study, of whom 545 underwent ERAS protocols and 547 received SC treatment.RESULTS No significant difference was observed between ERAS and control groups regarding total complications(P = 0.88), mortality(P = 0.50) and reoperation(P = 0.49). The incidence of pulmonary infection was significantly reduced(P = 0.03) following gastrectomy. However, the readmission rate after GC surgery nearly tripled under ERAS(P = 0.009). ERAS protocols significantly decreased the length of postoperative hospital stay(P 0.00001) and medical costs(P 0.00001), and accelerated bowel function recovery, as measured by earlier time to the first flatus(P = 0.0004) and the first defecation(P 0.0001). Moreover, ERAS protocols were associated with a lower level of serum inflammatory response, higher serum albumin, and superior shortterm quality of life(QOL).CONCLUSION Collectively, ERAS results in accelerated convalescence, reduction of surgical stress and medical costs, improved nutritional status, and better QOL for GC patients. However, high-quality multicenter RCTs with large samples and long-term follow-up are needed to more precisely evaluate ERAS in radical gastrectomy.     

Fast-track rehabilitation program vs conventional care after colorectal resection: a randomized clinical trial

AIM:To compare the fast-track rehabilitation program and conventional care for patients after resection of colorectal cancer.METHODS:One hundred and six consecutive patients who underwent fast-track rehabilitation program were encouraged to have early oral feeding and movement for early discharge,while 104 consecutive patients underwent conventional care after resection of colorectal cancer.Their gastrointestinal functions,postoperative complications and hospital stay time were recorded.RESULTS:The restorat...     

Five-year long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

AIM:To perform a meta-analysis to answer whether long-term recurrence rates after laparoscopic-assisted surgery are comparable to those reported after open surgery.METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE database,EMBASE database,and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991-2010 was performed.Prospective randomized clinical trials(RCTs)were eligible if they included patients with colon cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery and followed for more than five years.RESULTS:Three studies involving 2147 patients reported long-term outcomes based on five-year data and were included in the analysis.The overall mortality was similar in the two groups(24.9%,268/1075 in the laparoscopic group and 26.4%,283/1072 in open group).No significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery were found in overall mortality during the follow-up period of these studies[OR(fixed) 0.92,95%confidence intervals(95%CI):0.76-1.12,P=0.41].No significant difference in the development of overall recurrence was found in colon cancer patients,when comparing laparoscopic and open surgery [2147 pts,19.3%vs 20.0%;OR(fixed)0.96,95% CI:0.78-1.19,P=0.71].CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopic surgery was as efficacious and safe as open surgery for colon cancer,based on the five-year data of these included RCTs.     

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Current considerations

R a d i c a l g a s t r e c t o m y w i t h a n a d e q u a t e l y m p h-adenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer(GC). A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase Ⅲ evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage GC. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage GC, especially in Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Some intrinsic drawbacks of the conventional laparoscopic technique have prevented the worldwide spread of laparoscopic gastrectomyfor cancer and, despite technological advances in recent year, it remains a technically challenging procedure. The introduction of robotic surgery over the last ten years has implied a notable mutation of certain minimally invasive procedures, making it possible to overcome some limitations of the traditional laparoscopic technique. Robot-assisted gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection has been shown to be safe and feasible in prospective and retrospective studies. However, to date there are no high quality comparative studies investigating the advantages of a robotic approach to GC over traditional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. On the basis of the literature review here presented, robot-assisted surgery seems to fulfill oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has a comparable oncologic outcome to traditional laparoscopic and open procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy was associated with the trend toward a shorter hospital stay with a comparable morbidity of conventional laparoscopic and open gastrectomy, but randomized clinical trials and longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible influence of robot gastrectomy on GC patient survival.     

Worldwide practice in gastric cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the current status of gastric cancer surgery worldwide.METHODS: An international cross-sectional survey on gastric cancer surgery was performed amongst international upper gastro-intestinal surgeons. All surgical members of the International Gastric Cancer Association were invited by e-mail to participate. An English web-based survey had to be filled in with regard to their surgical preferences. Questions asked included hospital volume, the use of neoadjuvant treatment, preferred surgical approach, extent of the lymphadenectomy and preferred anastomotic technique. The invitations were sent in September 2013 and the survey was closed in January 2014.RESULTS: The corresponding specific response rate was 227/615 (37%). The majority of respondents: originated from Asia (54%), performed > 21 gastrectomies per year (79%) and used neoadjuvant chemotherapy (73%). An open surgical procedure was performed by the majority of surgeons for distal gastrectomy for advanced cancer (91%) and total gastrectomy for both early and advanced cancer (52% and 94%). A minimally invasive procedure was preferred for distal gastrectomy for early cancer (65%). In Asia surgeons preferred a minimally invasive procedure for total gastrectomy for early cancer also (63%). A D1+ lymphadenectomy was preferred in early gastric cancer (52% for distal, 54% for total gastrectomy) and a D2 lymphadenectomy was preferred in advanced gastric cancer (93% for distal, 92% for total gastrectomy)CONCLUSION: Surgical preferences for gastric cancer surgery vary between surgeons worldwide. Although the majority of surgeons use neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive techniques are still not widely adapted.     

Current status of function-preserving surgery for gastric cancer

Recent advances in diagnostic techniques have allowed the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC) at an early stage. Due to the low incidence of lymph node metastasis and favorable prognosis in early GC, function-preserving surgery which improves postoperative quality of life may be possible. Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is one such function-preserving procedure, which is expected to offer advantages with regards to dumping syndrome, bile reflux gastritis, and the frequency of flatus, although PPG may induce delayed gastric emptying. Proximal gastrectomy (PG) is another function-preserving procedure, which is thought to be advantageous in terms of decreased duodenogastric reflux and good food reservoir function in the remnant stomach, although the incidence of heartburn or gastric fullness associated with this procedure is high. However, these disadvantages may be overcome by the reconstruction method used. The other important problem after PG is remnant GC, which was reported to occur in approximately 5% of patients. Therefore, the reconstruction technique used with PG should facilitate postoperative endoscopic examinations for early detection and treatment of remnant gastric carcinoma. Oncologic safety seems to be assured in both procedures, if the preoperative diagnosis is accurate. Patient selection should be carefully considered. Although many retrospective studies have demonstrated the utility of function-preserving surgery, no consensus on whether to adopt function-preserving surgery as the standard of care has been reached. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate survival and postoperative quality of life associated with function-preserving surgery.     

Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and r...     

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision(TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014(robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?Ⅰ-Ⅲ disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME(L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME(R-TME)(P 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. Thepatients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients(8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group(18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients(1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.     

Timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: Impact on outcomes

AIM To evaluate whether the neoadjuvant chemotherapy(NAc T)-surgery interval time significantly impacts the pathological complete response(pc R) rate and longterm survival.METHODS One hundred and seventy-six patients with gastric cancer undergoing NAc T and a planned gastrectomy at the chinese p LA General hospital were selected from January 2011 to January 2017. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to investigate the impact of NAc T-surgery interval time( 4 wk, 4-6 wk, and 6 wk) on pc R rate and overall survival(OS).RESULTS The NAc T-surgery interval time and clinician T stage were independent predictors of pc R. The interval time 6 wk was associated with a 74% higher odds of pc R as compared with an interval time of 4-6 wk(p = 0.044), while the odds ratio(OR) of clinical T3 vs clinical T4 stage for pc R was 2.90(95%c I: 1.04-8.01, p = 0.041). In cox regression analysis of long-term survival, postneoadjuvant therapy pathological N(yp N) stage significantly impacted OS(N0 vs N3: h R = 0.16, 95%c I: 0.37-0.70, p = 0.015; N1 vs N3: h R = 0.14, 95%c I: 0.02-0.81, p = 0.029) and disease-free survival(DFS)(N0 vs N3: h R = 0.11, 95%c I: 0.24-0.52, p = 0.005; N1 vs N3: h R = 0.17, 95%c I: 0.02-0.71, p = 0.020). The surgical procedure also had a positive impact on OS and DFS. The hazard ratio of distal gastrectomy vs total gastrectomy was 0.12(95%c I: 0.33-0.42, p = 0.001) for OS, and 0.13(95%c I: 0.36-0.44, p = 0.001) for DFS.CONCLUSION The NAc T-surgery interval time is associated with pc R but has no impact on survival, and an interval time 6 wk has a relatively high odds of pc R.     

Laparoscopic vs open D2 gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM:To conduct a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic(LGD2)and open D2 gastrectomies(OGD2)for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer(AGC).METHODS:Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and non-RCTs comparing LGD2 with OGD2 for AGC treatment,published between 1 January 2000 and 12January 2013,were identified in the Pub Med,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 oralintake,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.RESULTS:One RCT and 13 non-RCTs totaling 2596patients were included in the meta-analysis.LGD2 in comparison to OGD2 showed lower intraoperative blood loss[weighted mean difference(WMD)=-137.87 m L,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=-1.03d,95%CI:-1.90--0.16;P<0.05),flatus(WMD=-0.98d,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 diseasefree and overall survival rates.However,LGD2 had longer operative times(WMD=57.06 min,95%CI:41.87-72.25;P<0.01).CONCLUSION: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.     

Efficacy of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To rationally evaluate the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full Text Database were accessed to collect clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of S-1 vs capecitabine for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. Statistical analysis was performed by metaanalysis. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.RESULTS: Compared with capecitabine regimens, the 1-year survival rate in gastric cancer patients was 0.80(95%CI: 0.52-1.21, P = 0.29). The overall response rate of S-1 vs capecitabine was 0.94(95%CI: 0.59-1.51, P = 0.93). Compared with capecitabine regimens, the most frequent hematologic toxicities were neutropenia( O R = 0. 9 9, 9 5 % C I : 0. 6 5- 1. 4 9, P = 0. 9 4) a n d thrombocytopenia(OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.31-1.67, P = 0.44). The most frequent non-hematologic toxicities included nausea(OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.56-1.28, P = 0.43) and hand-foot syndrome(OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.10-0.27, P < 0.00001).CONCLUSION: The existing studies suggest that S-1 is not more effective than capecitabine in the treatment of gastric cancer patients, but does exhibit less toxicity with regard to hand-foot syndrome.     

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer associated peritoneal carcinomatosis(GCPC) has a poor prognosis with a median survival of less than one year. Systemic chemotherapy including targeted agents has not been found to significantly increase the survival in GCPC. Since recurrent gastric cancer remains confined to the abdominal cavity in many patients, regional therapies like aggressive cytoreductive surgery( CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy(HIPEC) have been investigated for GCPC. HIPEC has been used for three indications in GC- as an adjuvant therapy after a curative surgery, HIPEC has been shown to improve survival and reduce peritoneal recurrences in many randomised trials in Asian countries; as a definitive treatment in established PC, HIPEC along with CRS is the only therapeutic modality that has resulted in longterm survival in select groups of patients; as a palliative treatment in advanced PC with intractable ascites, HIPEC has been shown to control ascites and reduce the need for frequent paracentesis. While the results of randomised trials of adjuvant HIPEC from western centres are awaited, the role of HIPEC in the treatment of GCPC is still evolving and needs larger studies before it is accepted as a standard of care.