Three-year survival and distribution of lymph node metastases in gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from a European randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate lymphadenectomy is an important step in gastrectomy for cancer, with a modified D2 lymphadenectomy being recommended for advanced gastric cancers. When assessing a novel technique for the treatment of gastric cancer, lymphadenectomy should be non-inferior. The aim of this study was to assess completeness of lymphadenectomy and distribution patterns between open total gastrectomy (OTG) and minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) in the era of peri-operative chemotherapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the STOMACH trial, a randomized clinical trial in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between OTG and MITG for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Three-year survival, number of resected lymph nodes, completeness of lymphadenectomy, and distribution patterns were examined. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were included in this trial and randomized between OTG (49 patients) and MITG (47 patients). No difference in 3-year survival was observed, this was 57.1% in OTG group versus 46.8% in MITG group (P = 0.186). The mean number of examined lymph nodes per patient was 44.3 ± 16.7 in the OTG group and 40.7 ± 16.3 in the MITG group (P = 0.209). D2 lymphadenectomy of 71.4% in the OTG group and 74.5% in the MITG group was performed according to the surgeons; according to the pathologist compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy was 30% in the OTG group and 36% in the MITG group. Tier 2 lymph node metastases (stations 7-12) were observed in 19.6% in the OTG group versus 43.5% in the MITG group (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: No difference in 3-year survival was observed between open and minimally invasive gastrectomy. No differences were observed for lymph node yield and type of lymphadenectomy. Adherence to D2 lymphadenectomy reported by the pathologist was markedly low.

Health related quality of life following open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy for cancer: Results from a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60-90) in the open group and 68 (50-83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7-83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4-66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires.

Intraluminal mesh erosion after prosthetic hiatoplasty: incidence, management, and outcomes.

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the incidence, presentation, and treatment of mesh erosion into the esophagus or stomach after mesh hiatoplasty for primary or recurrent hiatal hernia. The study is a single-institution, retrospective cohort study. From November 2005 to December 2016, 122 patients consecutively underwent mesh hiatoplasty in our department, 91 during a primary surgery and 31 for a surgical revision. Follow-up was complete for 74%. Six patients of this series were evaluated for mesh erosion. In all cases, the mesh employed was a dual-type circular one. The mean time from surgery to erosion diagnosis was 42 months (median time 46 months, interquartile range 64 months). Three patients were asymptomatic, 1 had dysphagia, 1 had reflux recurrence, and 1 presented with mediastinal perforation. The absolute erosion rate was 4.9%. For patients under surveillance, the erosion rate was 6.6%, or 1 case every 48 patient-years of follow-up. The erosion rate after primary surgery was 3% or 1/86 patient-years of follow-up, and after surgery for recurrent hernia recurrence was 16% or 1/29 patient-years of follow-up. The mesh was left in place in 2 asymptomatic cases and endoscopically removed in 2 cases. Two patients submitted to surgical removal of the mesh, and only one needed a limited gastroesophageal junction resection for a conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The patient with esophageal perforation submitted to mesh removal, drainage, and an anterior partial fundoplication. There was no mortality. Mesh erosion after hiatoplasty presents with a high rate, especially when hiatoplasty is performed during revisional antireflux surgery. Most patients can be managed conservatively, and endoscopic removal should be considered a first-line therapy.