Predictive Value of KLASS-02-QC Assessment Score on KLASS-02 Surgical Outcomes: Validation of Surgeon Quality Control and Standardization for D2 Lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to audit the 22 items and assessed each item's predictive value on surgical outcomes. BACKGROUND: The KLASS-02 trial revealed that the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy are not inferior to open distal gastrectomy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The surgeons participating in this trial were chosen based on the assessment scores from the KLASS-02-QC trial, which used 22 items for standardization of D2 lymphadenectomy and quality control. METHODS: We reviewed proficiency scores (PSs) for 22 items for 20 surgeons who participated in KLASS-02. The surgeons were divided into 2 groups according to PS, and the perioperative outcomes of 924 patients enrolled in KLASS-02 were compared between groups. Each item's predictive value for perioperative outcome was then assessed using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of the total 924 patients, 529 were operated on by high-score surgeons (high PS) and 395 were operated on by low-score surgeons (low-PS). High-PS group had less intraoperative blood loss, longer operation times, and fewer complications, major complications, reoperations, and shorter first flatus and hospital stay than low-PS group ( P =0.006, P <0.001, P <0.001, P <0.001, P =0.042, P =0.013, and P <0.001, respectively). Some items used in KLASS-02-QC predicted perioperative outcomes, such as intraoperative blood loss, major complications, reoperation, and hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study only analyzed data associated with qualified surgeons, the 22 items effectively assessed the surgeons based on PS. A high score was associated with longer operation times, but better perioperative outcomes.

Secondary Primary Cancer after Primary Gastric Cancer: Literature Review and Big Data Analysis Using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) Database of Republic of Korea.

Advances in cancer screening and early detection, as well as improvements in surgical techniques and therapeutics, have contributed to decreasing gastric cancer mortality. The number of gastric cancer survivors continues to rise; however, long-term follow-up has revealed an increase in the risk of post-gastrectomy symptoms or other health problems, such as extra-gastric secondary primary cancer (SPC), in these survivors. Therefore, evidence-based screening for new primary cancer is needed in these populations; however, the incidence of SPC varies by country or continent and its characteristics have not been clearly reported. The characteristics of SPC are of increasing interest to both treatment providers and gastric cancer survivors; thus, this literature review explores not only the epidemiology and biology of SPC but also clinical and biological factors that influence its prognosis.

Assessment of laparoscopic stomach preserving surgery with sentinel basin dissection versus standard gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy in early gastric cancer-A multicenter randomized phase III clinical trial (SENORITA trial) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Along with the marked increase in early gastric cancer (EGC) in the Eastern countries, there has been an effort to adopt the sentinel node concept in EGC to preserve gastric function and reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications. Based on promising results from a previous quality control study, this prospective multicenter randomized controlled phase III clinical trial aims to elucidate the oncologic safety of laparoscopic stomach-preserving surgery with sentinel basin dissection (SBD) compared to a standard laparoscopic gastrectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter randomized controlled phase III trial with a non-inferiority design. Patients diagnosed with a single lesion of clinical stage T1N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma, with a diameter of 3 cm or less are eligible for the present study. A total of 580 patients (290 per group) will be randomized to either laparoscopic stomach-preserving surgery with SBD or standard surgery. The primary end-point is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life, 5-year DFS, and overall survival. Qualified investigators who completed the prior quality control study are exclusively allowed to participate in this phase III clinical trial. DISCUSSION: The proposed trial is expected to verify whether laparoscopic stomach-preserving surgery with SBD achieves similar oncologic outcomes and improved quality of life compared to a standard gastrectomy in EGC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at the NIH ClinicalTrial.gov database ( NCT01804998 ) on March 4th, 2013.

Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term surgical outcomes including financial cost of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of supporting evidence, robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive modality for the treatment of gastric cancer because of its assumed technical superiority over conventional laparoscopy. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter comparative study was conducted. Patients were matched according to the surgeon, extent of gastric resection, and sex. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. RESULTS: A total of 434 patients were enrolled for treatment with either robotic (n = 223) or laparoscopic (n = 211) gastrectomy for intention-to-treat analysis, and a total of 370 patients (n = 185 per treatment) were compared in per-protocol analysis. Results were similar between both analyses. In per-protocol analysis, both groups showed similar overall complication rates (robotic = 11.9% vs laparoscopic = 10.3%) and major complication rates (robotic = 1.1% vs laparoscopic = 1.1%) with no operative mortality in either group. Patients treated with robotic surgery showed significantly longer operative time (robotic = 221 minutes vs laparoscopic = 178 minutes; P < 0.001) and significantly higher total costs (robotic = US$13,432 vs laparoscopic = US$8090; P < 0.001), compared with those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. No significant differences between groups were noted in estimated blood loss, rates of open conversion, diet build-up, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The use of robotic systems is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment for minimally invasive surgery. However, our analysis of perioperative surgical outcomes indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Clinical trials identification: NCT01309256.