Current status of extended ‘D2 plus’ lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer

The extent of lymph node (LN) dissection has been a topic of interest in gastric cancer (GC) surgery. D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for most resectable advanced GC cases. The value and indications of more extended lymphadenectomy than D2 remain unclear. Currently, the controversial stations beyond the D2 range are mainly focused on no. 14v, no. 16a2/b1 and no. 13 LN stations. The metastatic rate of no. 14v LN is relatively high in advanced distal GC, particularly in patients with suspicious no. 6 LN metastasis. D2 plus no. 14v LN dissection may be attributed to improved survival outcomes for patients with obvious no. 6 LN metastasis. Although GC with para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastases is considered an M1 disease beyond surgical cure, patients with limited PALN metastases may benefit from the treatment strategy of adjuvant chemotherapy followed by D2 plus no. 16a2-b1 LN dissection. In addition, D2 plus no. 13 LN dissection may be an option in a potentially curative gastrectomy for GC with duodenal invasion. The present review discusses the current status and future perspectives of D2 plus lymphadenectomy.     

Positive impact of adding No.14v lymph node to D2 dissection on survival for distal gastric cancer patients after surgery with curative intent

Background

D2 lymphadenectomy has been increasingly regarded as standard surgical procedure for advanced gastric cancer (GC), while the necessity of No.14v lymph node (14v) dissection for distal GC is still controversial.

Methods

A total of 920 distal GC patients receiving at least a D2 lymph node dissection in Department of Gastric Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital were enrolled in this study, of whom, 243 patients also had the 14v dissected. Other 677 patients without 14v dissection were used for comparison.

Results

Forty-five (18.5%) patients had 14v metastasis. There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS) rate between patients with and without 14v dissection. Following stratified analysis, in TNM stages I, II, IIIa and IV, 14v dissection did not affect 3-year OS; in contrast, patients with 14v dissection had a significant higher 3-year OS than those without in TNM stages IIIb and IIIc. In multivariate analysis, 14v dissection was found to be an independent prognostic factor for GC patients with TNM stage IIIb/IIIc disease [hazard ratio (HR), 1.568; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.186-2.072; P=0.002]. GC patients with 14v dissection had a significant lower locoregional, especially lymph node, recurrence rate than those without 14v dissection (11.7% vs. 21.1%, P=0.035).

Conclusions

Adding 14v to D2 lymphadenectomy may be associated with improved 3-year OS for distal GC staged TNM IIIb/IIIc.     

Gastric cancer surgery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy--Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9501.

PURPOSE: Radical gastrectomy with regional lymphadenectomy is the only curative treatment option for gastric cancer. The extent of lymphadenectomy, however, is controversial. The two European randomized trials only reported an increase in operative morbidity and mortality, but failed to show survival benefit, in the D2 lymphadenectomy group. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the Japanese standard D2 and D2 + para-aortic nodal dissection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Only experienced surgeons in both procedures from 24 Japanese institutions participated in the study. Patients with potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma (T2-subserosa, T3, or T4) who were surgically fit were intraoperatively randomized. Postoperative morbidity and hospital mortality were recorded prospectively in a fixed format and were compared between the two groups in this study. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were randomized between July 1995 and April 2001. Postoperative complications were reported in 24.5% of all patients. Although the morbidity for the extended surgery group (28.1%) was slightly higher than the standard group (20.9%), there was no difference in the incidence of four major complications (anastomotic leak, pancreatic fistula, abdominal abscess, pneumonia) between the two groups. Hospital mortality was reported at 0.80%: one patient in each group died of operative complications, while one from each group died of rapid progressive cancer while inpatient. CONCLUSION: Specialized surgeons could safely perform gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in patients with low operative risks. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy could be added without increasing major surgical complications in this setting.     

Surgical outcomes of gastrectomy with D1 lymph node dissection performed for patients with unfavorable clinical conditions

BackgroundGastric cancer (GC) patients with advanced age and/or multiple morbidities have limited expected survival and may not benefit from extended lymph node resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of these GC patients who underwent gastrectomy with D1 dissection.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all GC patients who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent from 2009 to 2017. The decision to perform D1 was based on preoperative multidisciplinary meeting, and/or intraoperative clinical judgment.ResultsAmong 460 enrolled patients, 73 (15.9%) underwent D1 lymphadenectomy and 387 (84.1%) D2 lymphadenectomy. Male gender, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) III/IV, higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were more common in the D1 group. Postoperative major complications were significantly higher in D1 group (24.7% vs 12.4%, p < 0.001) and mostly related to clinical complications. Locoregional recurrence was higher in the D1 group (53.8% vs 39.5%, p = 0.330) however, without statistical significance. No difference was found in disease-free survival (DFS) between D1 and D2 patients with positive lymph nodes (p = 0.192), whereas overall survival was longer in the D2 group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant impact on survival of age ≥70 years, CCI ≥5, total gastrectomy, D1 lymphadenectomy and advanced stages (III/IV).ConclusionsFrail patients had high surgical mortality even when submitted to D1 dissection. DFS was comparable to D2. Extent of lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients should take in account the expectation of a decrease in surgical risk with the possibility of impairment of long-term survival.     

Current status of lymph node dissection in gastric cancer

Gastrectomy with lymph node (LN) dissection has been regarded as the standard surgery for gastric cancer (GC), however, the rational extent of lymphadenectomy remains controversial. Though gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy beyond D2 is classified as a non-standard gastrectomy, its clinical significance has been evaluated in many studies. Although hard evidence is lacking, D2 plus superior mesenteric vein (No. 14v) LN dissection is recommended when harbor metastasis to No. 6 nodes is suspected in the lower stomach, and dissection of splenic hilar (No. 10) LN can be performed for advanced GC invading the greater curvature of the upper stomach, and D2 plus posterior surface of the pancreatic head (No. 13) LN dissection may be an option in a potentially curative gastrectomy for cancer invading the duodenum. Prophylactic D2+ para-aortic nodal dissection (PAND) was not routinely recommended for advanced GC patients, but therapeutic D2 plus PAND may offer a chance of cure in selected patients, preoperative chemotherapy was considered as the standard treatment for GC with para-aortic node metastasis. There has been no consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy for the adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) so far. The length of esophageal invasion can be used as a reference point for mediastinal LN metastases, and the distance from the esophagogastric junction to the distal end of the tumor is essential for determining the optimal extent of resection. The quality of lymphadenectomy may influence prognosis in GC patients. Both hospital volume and surgeon volume were important factors for the quality of radical gastrectomy. Centralization of GC surgery may be needed to improve prognosis.     

全腔镜下二野与三野淋巴结清扫术在食管癌中的应用效果分析

目的 探讨全腔镜下二野与三野淋巴结清扫术在食管癌中的应用效果.方法 选取230例食管癌患者,根据不同的治疗方法,将230例患者分为二野组(n=120)和三野组(n=110).二野组接受全腔镜二野淋巴结清扫术,三野组接受全腔镜三野组淋巴结清扫术.比较两组患者淋巴结切除及转移情况、并发症发生率、1年生存率及复发率.结果 二野组平均每个患者淋巴结清扫数[(16.02±4.72)枚]显著低于三野组[(23.22 ±5.41)枚],二野组淋巴结转移率(59.2％)显著高于三野组(41.8％)(P＜0.05).两组淋巴结转移度无统计学差异(P＞0.05).三野组喉返神经损伤、呼吸系统并发症、吻合口瘘及心血管并发症发生率均显著高于二野组(P＜0.05).二野组患者1年生存率(83.3％)显著低于三野组(95.5％),二野组1年颈部淋巴结复发率和纵膈淋巴结复发率均明显高于三野组,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 全腔镜下三野淋巴结清扫术有利于提高食管癌的根治性,且有效降低术后转移率和复发率,提高患者的生存率,值得在临床推广.     

Comparison of complications after D2 and D3 dissection for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: D3 dissection is accepted as having higher rates of mortality and morbidity than D2 dissection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the mortality and morbidity rates of D3 dissection in our department and to compare these with mortality and morbidity after D2 dissection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent radical gastric resection with lymph node dissection for gastric adenocarcinoma between June 1999 and June 2002 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic features of the tumour, the resection and lymphadenectomy, the postoperative mortality and morbidity were analysed. RESULTS: There were 359 patients admitted for the treatment of gastric cancer. One hundred twenty four underwent palliative resection and 134 underwent resection with curative intent. Of 34/134 patients, underwent gastric resection with D3 dissection, and 100 underwent D2 dissection. The overall operative mortality rate of D2 and D3 dissections was 1 and 8.8%, respectively (p<0.05). The relaparotomy rate was almost doubled in D3 dissection group (11.8% vs. 6%) but this difference was not statistically significant. D3 dissection was also associated with an increase in morbidity (35.3% vs. 10%, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that D3 dissection can be performed with reasonable safety. It may be a useful alternative procedure in advanced cases for which additional risks of surgical morbidity and mortality are felt to be outweighed by potential benefits to patients.     

D1和D2式胃癌切除术后并发症对比研究

目的分析实施D1和D2式胃癌切除术后患者的早期并发症发生率和死亡率,进一步提高胃癌手术治疗的效果。方法收集2006年1月至2007年12月连续收治的实施D1或D2式胃癌切除术患者的临床资料,分析肿瘤临床病理特征、淋巴结廓清程度和术后早期并发症以及死亡率之间的关系。结果130例患者实施了胃癌切除术,D1式34例,D2式96例。D2式术后早期并发症发生率明显高于D1式（20．6％比39．6％,P〈0．05）。进一步分析单个并发症的发生情况,两种术式差异无统计学意义。D2式术后死亡率为4．2％（4／96）,D1式为0（0／34）,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。死亡患者4例,均为D2式切除术。与吻合口瘘、胰瘘等相关的肺部并发症是术后患者死亡的重要原因。结论D2式胃癌切除术是治疗胃癌安全有效的方法。淋巴结清除程度是增加术后并发症发生率和死亡率的因素。提高手术廓清技能和标准化胃癌淋巴结廓清术可能是减少术后早期并发症和死亡率的关键途径。     

Clinical significance of lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer

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.     

T3期声门型喉癌的外科治疗选择

目的 探讨T3期声门型喉癌合适的外科治疗方式.方法 回顾性分析57例T3期声门型喉癌患者的临床病理特征、手术方式和预后,分析不同手术方式和不同年龄组患者的3年无瘤生存率.结果 57例T3期声门型喉癌患者全部行喉部手术治疗,失访7例,总的3年无瘤生存率为63.2％(36/57).采用喉全切除术24例,喉近全切除术8例,喉部分切除术25例,3年无瘤生存率分别为66.7％ (16/24)、50.0％ (4/8)和64.0％ (16/25),差异无统计学意义(P =0.694).≥70岁者和＜70岁者的3年无瘤生存率分别为70.0％ (7/10)和61.7％( 29/47),差异亦无统计学意义(P=0.621).36例患者行颈淋巴结清扫术,其中全颈淋巴结清扫2例,改良颈淋巴结清扫6例,分区性颈淋巴结清扫28例,颈部淋巴结转移率为17.5％(10/57).局部复发10例,其中喉部分切除术后7例,喉近全切除术后2例,喉全切除术后1例.结论 喉全切除术与不同的喉部分切除术均是T3期声门型喉癌的重要手术方式,应根据患者局部病变与全身状况的具体情况综合考虑,选择合适的个体化手术方式.≥70岁的T3期声门型喉癌患者,应慎行喉部分切除术,喉全切除术也可以取得满意疗效.     

Randomized clinical trial of D2 and extended paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer

Background The survival of patients with advanced gastric cancer after D2 dissection is still poor. Asian surgeons have proposed a more radical lymph node dissection, designated as D4 dissection, where paraaortic lymph nodes are removed in combination with D2 dissection. To evaluate the survival benefit of D4 dissection, a multi-institutional randomized trial of D2 vs D4 gastrectomy was conducted. Methods Patients enrolled in the study had potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma at an advanced stage. Patients were randomized to undergo either D2 or D4 gastrectomy. Results Two hundred and ninety-three patients were registered and 269 patients were eligible; 135 patients were allocated to the D2 group and 134 to the D4 group. Five-year survival was 52.6% after D2 surgery and 55.0% after D4 gastrectomy. There was no significant difference in survival between the D2 and D4 groups (χ² = 0.064; P = 0.801). Hospital deaths occurred in 1 patients (0.7%) in the D2 group and 5 in the D4 group D4 gastrectomy is a more risky surgery than D2 dissection. Seven patients (5.2%) in the D2 and 15 (11.2%) in the D4 group died of causes other than gastric cancer recurrence. Sixty-three patients (46.7%) in the D2 group and 52 (38.8%) in the D4 group had disease recurrence. Conclusion Prophylactic D4 dissection is not recommended for patients with potentially curable advanced gastric cancer.     

进展期远端胃癌行扩大淋巴结清扫术的研究进展

淋巴结清扫范围一直是胃癌外科的热点问题。D2根治术作为进展期胃癌标准手术已达成共识,然而扩大淋巴结清扫的价值依然存在争议。进展期远端胃癌第14v组淋巴结转移率较高,D2+14v组淋巴结清扫有可能改善第6组淋巴结明显转移患者预后;尽管胃癌腹主动脉旁淋巴结转移视为M1,但D2+16a2/b1淋巴结清扫对局限性第16组淋巴结转移患者可能获益;而D2+13组淋巴结清扫有可能提高伴有十二指肠浸润胃癌患者生存率。本文旨在探讨扩大淋巴结清扫在胃癌中的价值,以期为临床提供依据,现就进展期远端胃癌扩大淋巴结清扫的研究进展进行综述。      

Clinical practice guidelines: 2004 Standards, Options and Recommendations for the management of patient with adenocarcinoma of the stomach--radiotherapy.]

CONTEXT: "The Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French regional cancer centers, and specialists from French Public Universities, General Hospitals and Private Clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To elaborate clinical practice guidelines for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. These recommendations cover the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of these tumors. METHODS: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. The Standards, Options and Recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. RESULTS: Adjuvant radiation therapy alone is not a standard treatment for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is not a standard treatment for patients with stage II or III stomach adenocarcinoma R0, with Dl or D2 lymphadenectomy who have undergone surgery. Following surgical resection, adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy should be proposed to patients without denutrition with a lymphadenectomy < Dl (fewer than 15 lymph nodes examined) and those with T3 and/or N+ tumours following the protocol used in the MacDonald trials (SWOG-9008) (Level of evidence B1). Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy can be administered to patients without denutrition with DI or D2 lymphadenectomy and with involvement of regional lymph nodes (N2 or N3).     

局部晚期胃癌根治术后复发部位分析及对术后放疗意义的探讨

目的 分析局部晚期胃癌根治术后(＞D1术)患者首次失败部位和影响复发的因素,评估术后辅助同期放化疗的必要性.方法 对2002-2004年在本院接受胃癌根治术(R0切除,＞D1淋巴结清扫)、病理诊断为T3～4N0～1M0期或TxN2～3M0期,复查超过1年且有完备医学书写记录的297例患者的临床、病理资料进行回顾分析.Ⅱ、Ⅲa,Ⅲb,Ⅳ期(M0)患者分别占19.5%、52.2%、17.8%、10.4%.76.1%患者接受了术后辅助化疗,仅2例接受了术后放疗.结果 全组中位随访时间61个月,随访率为92.3%.145例患者出现术后复发,中位复发时间26个月.复发患者中局部区域复发82例,与全组远处转移的79例相当.局部区域复发部位主要为残胃、吻合口、腹腔或腹膜后淋巴结;远处转移最多见于肝脏和肺.单因素分析影响局部区域复发的主要临床病理因素为病理类型(χ2=11.50,P=0.009)、淋巴结检出总数(χ2=6.65,P=0.010)、淋巴结阳性(χ2=5.80,P=0.016)、淋巴结包膜受侵(χ2=5.15,P=0.023)和病理分期(χ2=7.86,P=0.049).多因素分析显示病理类型、淋巴结检出总数、病理分期和Borrmann分型为影响局部区域复发的独立预后因素(χ2=6.77、19.33、17.84、6.02,P=0.009、0.000、0.000、0.014).结论 胃癌根治术后、＞D1淋巴结清扫且接受术后化疗者术后局部区域复发仍为主要失败原因,建议对局部区域复发高危患者行术后同期放化疔的前瞻性研究.

Abstract：

Objective The benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains controversial for gastric cancer patients treated with more than D1 dissection. This retrospective analysis is to distinguish the first site of recurrence in patients treated with curative resection and more than D1 dissection and to find any feasible adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy recommendation for them. Methods All patients treated between January 2002 and December 2004 who met the following criteria were analyzed: primary gastric or gastroesophageal cancer, underwent curative gastrectomy ( UICC R0 ) and more than D1 lymphadenectomy,pathologically staged as T3-4N0-1 M0, or any Tx N2-3M0. There were 297 patients analyzed and 19.5%,52. 2%, 17. 8% , 10. 4% of patients had stage Ⅱ ( T3 N0 M0, T1 N2 M0 ), Ⅲa, Ⅲb and Ⅳ ( M0 ) diseases,respectively. 76. 1% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, while Only 2 patients underwent adjuvant radiotherapy. Failure patterns and the prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence were analyzed. Results The median follow-up time was 61 months and the follow-up rate was 92. 3%. 145 patients developed recurrence with a median recurrent time of 26 months. Locoregional recurrence was observed in 82 patients and distant metastasis in 79 patients. Gastric stump, anastomosis, intra-abdominal lymph nodes were the most common sites of locoregional recurrence. Liver and lung were the most frequent sites of distant metastasis. Prognostic variables for locoregional recurrence were identified after univariate analysis,including pathologic type ( χ2 = 11.50, P = 0. 009 ), total number of dissected lymph nodes ( χ2 = 6. 65,P =0. 010), the number of positive lymph node ( χ2 =5. 80,P =0. 016), lymph node capsular invasion ( χ2 =pathologic type, total number of dissected lymph nodes, lymph node capsular invation, AJCC TNM stage and Borrmann type were independent prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence ( χ2 = 6. 77,19. 33,17. 84 and 6. 02,P =0. 009,0. 000,0. 000 and 0. 014). Conclusions Locoregional recurrence remains the main cause of failure for locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer patients even though the patients have had more than D1 lymphadenectomy. The role of adjuvant concurrent hemoradiotheray for those patients is warranted.     

Perspectives in the treatment of gastric cancer

The overall 5-year survival of patients with gastric cancer is only 23% in the US compared with 60% in Japan. For Western patients, detecting the disease earlier and applying treatment quality control could substantially improve clinical outcome. For the treatment of gastric cancer, complete tumor resection, whenever feasible, is the standard treatment. Resection of the primary tumor (partial or total gastrectomy) is based on standardized criteria of the tumor, such as location, stage, histology, and surgical margins. The extent of regional lymphadenectomy required, however, has been a matter of considerable debate. Emerging evidence from the latest randomized controlled trials show that extended (D2) lymphadenectomy is safe and able to cure 20% of patients with N2-disease compared with 0% treated with limited D1 dissection, provided that the optimal surgical technique is used. Estimates suggest that this N2-specific subgroup advantage reflects a potential absolute overall survival benefit of 3-6%. Postoperative decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are based on pathologic staging, the extent of surgery performed (D0/D1 vs D2/D3) and the risk-benefit ratio. Recurrence-risk and mortality-risk reduction is achievable with a carefully planned relapse-prevention guided therapeutic strategy. Patient-related factors (tumor features and expected recurrence-risk magnitude) and treatment-related factors (surgical experience, adjuvant treatment risk-benefit ratio) should be considered on an individual basis. In future, genomic-based approaches will help to provide a more personalized therapeutic approach and improve patient outcome.     

T4期胸段食管鳞癌预后及疗效分析

目的:观察T4期胸段食管鳞癌探查术后的预后及挽救性放化疗的疗效.方法:搜集了2012年2月至2015年12月在我科治疗的31例T4期食管癌患者,12例接受了剖胸探查术(探查组),19例未行探查术(非探查组).非探查组均接受了同步放化疗或序贯放化疗,探查组有5例患者接受单纯放疗,另7例接受同步放化疗或序贯放化疗.放疗方式为调强放疗,照射剂量范围为36 ～ 64Gy,化疗方案以紫杉类联合铂类为主.结果:探查组患者客观缓解率为41.7％,中位生存期为8.0个月,1年生存率为16.7％,仅有1例患者生存时间超过2年,食管瘘发生率为66.7％.而非探查组患者客观缓解率为73.7％,中位生存期为19.0个月,1年生存率为63.2％,2年生存率为36.8％ (P =0.03).结论:胸段食管鳞癌探查术后即使接受挽救性放化疗,其预后仍较差,生存率明显低于单纯根治性放化疗,并且食管瘘发生率明显增加.     

不同淋巴结清扫方式治疗胸中上段食管癌的疗效及对预后的影响

目的 探讨不同淋巴结清扫方式治疗胸中上段食管癌的临床效果及对患者预后的影响.方法 将134例胸中上段食管癌患者按淋巴结清扫方式不同分为观察组(56例)和对照组(78例),观察组行三野淋巴结清扫术,对照组行二野淋巴结清扫术.比较两组患者术后淋巴结病理检查结果 、术后并发症情况及术后随访情况,检测两组患者术前及术后4个月乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)、一氧化氮(NO)、一氧化氮合成酶(NOS)、癌胚抗原(CEA)水平.结果 观察组平均清扫淋巴结数(44.3±6.9)枚/例,淋巴结转移度为10.9％,对照组平均清扫淋巴结数(38.3±5.4)枚/例,淋巴结转移度为12.0％,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组淋巴结转移率为60.7％,显著高于对照组的42.3％(P<0.05);且观察组有较高的颈部淋巴结转移率(21.4％)和上纵隔淋巴结转移率(33.9％),但与对照组上纵隔淋巴结转移率(30.8％)比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组术后喉返神经损伤、吻合口瘘、呼吸系统并发症、心血管并发症及围术期死亡率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后4个月,观察组LDH、NOS、CEA水平较对照组均显著降低(P<0.05),NO水平较对照组显著升高(P<0.05);观察组术后1年生存率为96.3％,显著高于对照组的85.5％(P<0.05);观察组术后1年颈部淋巴结复发率为1.9％,显著低于对照组的11.8％(P<0.05).结论 三野淋巴结清扫术较二野淋巴结清扫术能更彻底清除颈部及上纵隔淋巴结,有利于提高胸中上段食管癌手术根治性和术后分期,减少术后局部复发,改善患者预后.     

Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted by conventional open distal gastrectomy and extraperigastric lymph node dissection in early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is considered technically more complicated than the open method. Moreover, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with extraperigastric lymph node dissection in patients with gastric cancer have not been established yet. To evaluate short-term surgical validity, surgical outcome of the laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with extraperigastric lymph node dissection was compared with that of the conventional open distal gastrectomy (CODG) in patients with early gastric cancer. METHODS: One hundred and forty-seven patients with early gastric cancer received radical distal gastrectomy during 2002 and 2003, where LADG was undergone in 71 patients. The clinicopathologic characteristics, postoperative outcomes and courses, and postoperative morbidities and mortalities were compared between the two groups. Data were retrieved from the stomach cancer database at Dong-A University Medical center. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, tumor size, T stage, and lymph node metastasis were similar between the two groups. No significant differences were found between these groups in terms of the number of retrieved lymph nodes with respect to D1 + alpha (D1 + no. 7) and D1 + beta (D1 + no. 7, 8a, and 9) lymphadenectomy. In the LADG group, wound size was smaller (P < 0.0001), but operation time was longer (P = 0.0001) than in the CODG group. Perioperative recovery was faster in the LADG group than in the CODG group, as reflected by a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0176) and less times of additional analgesics (P = 0.0370). Serum albumin level in LADG was higher (P = 0.0002) on day 7 than that in CODG, and the leukocyte count in LADG lower (P = 0.0445) on day 1 than that in CODG. Postoperative morbidities and mortalities were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed that LADG with extraperigastric (no. 7, 8, and 9) lymph node dissection proved to be feasible and acceptable surgical technique for early gastric cancer. At least taking a surgical point of view, LADG with extraperigastric lymph node dissection is suggested to be a preferred surgical option for patients with early gastric cancer. Its oncologic validity awaits larger and prospective multicenter trials.     

Prognostic factors for patients with node‐negative gastric cancer: Can extended lymph node dissection have a survival benefit?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: For the patients with node-negative gastric cancer, there is no agreement on which clinicopathological factors influence the final results except T stage. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic factors, and to reveal whether the extent of lymph node dissection is associated with survival benefit for these patients. METHODS: Clinicopathological data of 506 patients with node-negative gastric cancer were studied. We divided the patients into D1 and D2 groups and carried out univariate and multivariate survival analyses. RESULTS: On the univariate analysis, the factors influencing survival were age, tumor size, Borrmann type, resection type, and the T stage. However, multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model disclosed age and the T stage to be significant variables. The extent of lymphadenectomy was revealed to be the independent prognostic factors for survival only for the patients with T3 stage. CONCLUSIONS: For the patients with clinically node-negative gastric cancer, an extended D2 lymph node dissection for the patients with T1 and T2 stage has no survival benefits. Although it might have some benefit for T3 stage by multivariate analysis, we should ascertain its value through a large randomized prospective study.     

Neck observation versus elective neck dissection in management of clinical T1/2NO oral squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective study of 232 patients

Objective:The management of early-stage (cT1/2N0) oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) remains a controversial issue.The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of neck observation (OBS) and elective neck dissection (END) in treating patients with cT1/2N0OSCC.Methods:A total of 232 patients with cT1/2N0OSCC were included in this retrospective study.Of these patients,181 were treated with END and 51 with OBS.The survival curves of 5-year overall survival (OS),diseasespecific survival (DSS),and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method for each group,and compared using the Log-rank test.Results:There was no significant difference in 5-year OS and DSS rates between END and OBS groups (OS:89.0％ vs.88.2％,P=0.906;DSS:92.3％ vs.92.2％,P=0.998).However,the END group had a higher 5-year RFS rate than the OBS group (90.1％ vs.76.5％,P=0.009).Patients with occult metastases in OBS group (7/51) had similar 5-year OS rate (57.1％ vs.64.1％,P=0.839) and DSS rate (71.4％ vs.74.4％,P=0.982) to those in END group (39/181).In the regional recurrence patients,the 5-year O S rate (57.1％ vs.11.1％,P=0.011) and D SS rate (71.4％ vs.22.2％,P=0.022) in OBS group (7/51) were higher than those in END group (9/181).Conclusions:The results indicated that OBS policy could obtain the same 5-year OS and DSS as END.Under close follow-up,OBS policy may be an available treatment option for patients with clinical T1/2N0OSCC.