The Effectiveness of Screening Total Colonoscopy for Preoperative Patients with Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer that coincides with gastric cancer (GC). Although the usefulness of total colonoscopy (TCS) as a CRC screening tool has been reported in preoperative patients with GC, the long-term outcome of patients with synchronous CRC (SCRC) remains unclear. This study aims to clarify the significance of preoperative screening TCS for GC in terms of survival outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 796 patients who underwent preoperative screening TCS for GC. The risk factors, clinicopathological features, and survival outcome of SCRC were examined. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of improving the rates of mortality caused by CRC. RESULTS: SCRC was observed in 43 patients (5.4%). Endoscopic treatment for SCRC was performed on 30 patients. In total, 15 patients underwent surgical resection, including 2 patients requiring additional surgery after endoscopic treatment. Regarding pathological stages, 25 patients had stage 0, 12 patients had stage I, 5 patients had stage II, and 1 patient had stage IIIB disease. The cumulative mortality rates were as follows: GC-related deaths, 12.6%; deaths from cancers other than CRC, 1%; deaths from other causes, 5.5%. No deaths were attributed to SCRC. Comparing the patients who did not undergo TCS, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis suggested that a screening cost of 5.86 million yen was required to prevent one CRC death. CONCLUSIONS: Curative treatment was possible in all patients with SCRC. No deaths were attributed to SCRC, suggesting that screening TCS for GC is effective.

Molecular features and prognostic factors of locally advanced microsatellite instability-high gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors are distinct molecular subtypes in gastric cancer. However, a few studies have comprehensively reported the molecular features of MSI-H tumors and their prognostic factors in locally advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to clarify the molecular features and prognostic factors of locally advanced MSI-H gastric cancer. METHODS: This study included 499 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy. We evaluated the MSI status and compared with previously published whole-exome sequencing, panel sequencing, and gene expression profiling data. Clinicopathological characteristics and molecular profiles were compared between patients with MSI-H and microsatellite stable (MSS) gastric cancer. A subgroup analysis of survival was performed in patients with MSI-H gastric cancer. RESULTS: MSI-H tumors were detected in 79 of 499 patients (15.8%). MSI-H tumors were associated with an increased tumor mutational burden, MLH1 downregulation, CD274 (PD-L1) upregulation, and enrichment of cell cycle pathways. Among patients with MSI-H gastric cancer, the disease-specific survival (DSS) tended to be better in the surgery plus tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) adjuvant chemotherapy group than in the surgery alone group, especially for stage III patients. Furthermore, DSS was better in the T cell-inflamed gene expression signature-high group, and it tended to be worse in the non-solid type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma group. CONCLUSIONS: The molecular features and prognostic factors of locally advanced MSI-H gastric cancer were clarified. S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy appears to be beneficial, and the T cell-inflamed gene expression signature and histopathological type are prognostic factors in MSI-H tumors.

Molecular profile of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma with special reference to survival.

BACKGROUND: Patients with poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma (PCC) are known to have poor survival. However, detailed molecular biology of PCC has not been elucidated, except for mutations in CDH1 and RHOA. Additionally, the molecular profiles of signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRC) have not been fully investigated. We aimed to investigate the association between molecular profiles and survival in PCC and PCC subtypes. METHODS: The present study included 455 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent radical gastrectomy. Whole-exome sequencing and gene expression profiling were conducted. Patients were classified according to the WHO classification as PCC or non-PCC, with PCC being further classified into SRC, combined, and PCC not-otherwise-specified (NOS). Clinicopathological factors and survival were compared with molecular profiles. RESULTS: Of the patients, 159 were classified with PCC, while 296 were classified with non-PCC. Among PCC, 44 were classified with SRC, 64 with combined, and 51 with PCC-NOS. Mutations in CDH1 and RHOA were remarkably more frequent in PCC than in non-PCC. PCC had worse overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) compared to non-PCC. For PCC, the SRC group had good OS and DSS, whereas PCC-NOS classification with CDH1 mutations was associated with extremely poor survival. In the PCC-NOS and combined groups, patients with mutations in the extracellular domain 1 of CDH1 had poor survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that PCC has poorer survival than non-PCC. Accumulation of CDH1 and RHOA mutations are unique profiles in PCC. Among PCC, CDH1 mutations may play a crucial role in the survival of non-SRC PCC.

Molecular classification of gastric cancer predicts survival in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy based on project HOPE.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) has been classified based on molecular profiling like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG), and attempts have been made to establish therapeutic strategies based on these classifications. However, it is difficult to predict the survival according to these classifications especially in radically resected patients. We aimed to establish a new molecular classification of GC which predicts the survival in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy. METHODS: The present study included 499 Japanese patients with advanced GC undergoing radical (R0/R1) gastrectomy. Whole-exome sequencing, panel sequencing, and gene expression profiling were conducted (High-tech Omics-based Patient Evaluation [Project HOPE]). We classified patients according to TCGA and ACRG subtypes, and evaluated the clinicopathologic features and survival. Then, we attempted to classify patients according to their molecular profiles associated with biological features and survival (HOPE classification). RESULTS: TCGA and ACRG classifications failed to predict the survival. In HOPE classification, hypermutated (HMT) tumors were selected first as a distinctive feature, and T-cell-inflamed expression signature-high (TCI) tumors were then extracted. Finally, the remaining tumors were divided by the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) expression signature. HOPE classification significantly predicted the disease-specific and overall survival (p < 0.001 and 0.020, respectively). HMT + TCI showed the best survival, while EMT-high showed the worst survival. The HOPE classification was successfully validated in the TCGA cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We established a new molecular classification of gastric cancer that predicts the survival in patients undergoing radical surgery.

Comparisons of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy in patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach is especially promising for challenging surgeries, such as total gastrectomy. However, it remains unclear whether robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) is superior to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RTG on short- and long-term outcomes for patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer. METHODS: This study included 98 patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive total gastrectomy from October 2013 to December 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RTG were compared with those of LTG. RESULTS: This study included 36 RTG and 58 LTG patients. RTG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LTG (p = 0.023). All complications tended to be lower in the RTG group than in the LTG group (2.8% and 15.5%, respectively; p = 0.083). There were no patients with anastomotic leakage in the RTG group. The multivariate analysis identified LTG as the only independent risk factor for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 6.620; 95% confidence interval, 1.132-126.4; p = 0.034). The survival of the RTG and LTG groups was equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: RTG reduced the risk of complications compared to LTG. Patients treated using the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

Advantages of a robotic approach compared with laparoscopy gastrectomy for patients with high visceral fat area.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer surgery for obese patients is regarded as a technically challenging procedure. The morbidity after gastrectomy has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with high visceral fat area (VFA). Robotic gastrectomy (RG) is expected to be advantageous for complicated operations. However, whether RG is superior to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with visceral fat obesity remains unclear. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high VFAs. METHODS: This study included 1306 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy between January 2012 and December 2020. The patients were subclassified according to VFA. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG were compared with those of LG in two VFA categories. RESULTS: This study included 394 (high-VFA, 151; low-VFA, 243) and 882 patients (high-VFA, 366; low-VFA, 516) in the RG and LG groups, respectively. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time than LG (high-VFA, P < 0.001; low-VFA, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of overall and intra-abdominal infectious complications in the high-VFA patients were lower in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.019 and P = 0.048, respectively) but not significantly different from those in the low-VFA patients. In the multivariate analysis, LG was identified as the only independent risk factor of overall (odds ratio [OR] 3.281; P = 0.012) and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.462; P = 0.021) in the high-VFA patients. The overall survival of high-VFA patients was significantly better in the RG group than in the LG group (P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with visceral fat obesity, RG appears to be advantageous to LG in terms of reducing the risk of complications and better long-term survival.

Prognostic factors in patients who received paraaortic lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis.

PURPOSE: While paraaortic lymph node (PAN) dissection (PAND) has been found to be efficacious for patients with extensive lymph node metastasis (ELM) of locally advanced gastric cancer (LGC), the optimal indications for PAND remain to be elucidated. Thus, the prognostic factors among these patients were evaluated. METHODS: A total of 35 patients with ELM of LGC who underwent gastrectomy with D2 and PAND between August 2008 and December 2019 were included and evaluated for long-term outcomes and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Preoperative chemotherapy was administered to 33 patients [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), n = 26; palliative chemotherapy followed by conversion surgery, n = 7], none of whom suffered surgical mortality. The pathological analysis identified PAN metastasis in 11 patients (31.4%). The 5-year overall and relapse-free survival (RFS) survival were 66.4% and 52.6%, respectively. Locoregional recurrence was found in one patient. The multivariate analysis revealed that NAC (P = 0.011) and < 3 metastatic PANs on preoperative imaging (P = 0.017) were independently associated with RFS. CONCLUSION: D2 and PAND after NAC can be a promising approach for patients with ELM of LGC. In particular, patients with a limited number of metastatic PANs can be considered good candidates for PAND.

Preoperative risk factors for postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complication after gastrectomy for gastric cancer using a Japanese web-based nationwide database.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complication (PIIC) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer worsens in-hospital death or long-term survival. However, the methodology for PIIC preoperative risk assessment remains unestablished. We aimed to develop a preoperative risk model for postgastrectomy PIIC. METHODS: We collected 183,936 patients' data on distal or total gastrectomy performed in 2013-2016 for gastric cancer from the Japanese National Clinical Database and divided into development (2013-2015; n = 140,558) and validation (2016; n = 43,378) cohort. The primary outcome was the incidence of PIIC. The risk model for PIIC was developed using 18 preoperative factors: age, sex, body mass index, activities of daily living, 12 comorbidity types, gastric cancer stage, and surgical procedure in the development cohort. Secondarily, we developed another model based on the new scoring system for clinical use using selected factors. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PIIC was 4.7%, including 2.6%, 1.7%, and 1.3% in anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal abscess, respectively. Among the 18 preoperative factors, male [odds ratio, (OR) 1.92], obesity (OR, 1.52-1.96), peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.55), steroid use (OR, 1.83), and total gastrectomy (OR, 1.89) strongly correlated with PIIC incidence. The entire model using the 18 factors had good discrimination and calibration in the validation cohort. We selected eight relevant factors to create a simple scoring system, using which we categorized the patients into three risk groups, which showed good calibration. CONCLUSION: Using nationwide clinical practice data, we created a preoperative risk model for postgastrectomy PIIC for gastric cancer.

MAGEA10 expression is a predictive marker of early hepatic recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Resection for hepatic recurrence after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer may be curative; however, the prediction of hepatic recurrence remains intractable. Therefore, we aimed to explore predictive markers for hepatic recurrence in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer based on genetic information. METHODS: This study recruited 154 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for pathological stage II or III primary gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Genes associated with hepatic recurrence were comprehensively analyzed using whole-exome sequencing and gene expression profiling (GEP), followed by immunohistochemistry analysis for MAGEA10. The cumulative incidences of hepatic recurrence, relapse-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients with early hepatic recurrences were found within 2 years of surgery. Although there were no distinct gene mutations in recurrent patients, upregulation of MAGEA10 was identified in patients with early hepatic recurrence using GEP analysis. Immunostaining for MAGEA10 stained the cell nuclei in 29 (18.8%) of 154 samples. Furthermore, protein expression of MAGEA10 on immunohistochemistry was significantly related to a high MAGEA10 mRNA expression, high cumulative incidences of hepatic recurrence, and poor relapse-free survival. Overall survival did not differ significantly between positive and negative immunohistochemical staining for MAGEA10. The sensitivity and specificity of MAGEA10 staining for early hepatic recurrence were 58.3% and 84.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MAGEA10 represents a promising predictive marker for early hepatic recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.

Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer remain unclear due to a lack of prospective studies. We had previously designed and conducted a prospective phase II study of RG that showed favorable short-term outcomes. Herein, we aimed to determine the long-term outcomes of RG for clinical stage I gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center, prospective phase II study enrolled patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer undergoing RG. The survival outcomes, which were the secondary endpoints of the study, were evaluated. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and April 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-98.7%). The 5-year recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 96.7% (95% CI 91.5-98.7%) and 99.2% (95% CI 94.3-99.9%), respectively. When confining the analysis to distal and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy, the 5-year OS, RFS, and DSS were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.5%), and 100%, respectively. Only one patient died due to relapse of gastric cancer, while three died from other causes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of RG was comparable to those of open and laparoscopic gastrectomy when the surgeries were performed by experienced surgeons in a high-volume center.

Robotic Gastrectomy Compared with Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I/II Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to address the drawbacks of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG); however, whether or not RG is superior to conventional LG remains to be seen. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of RG on clinical stage I/II gastric cancer patients. METHODS: The present study included 1208 patients with clinical stage I/II gastric cancer who had minimally invasive gastrectomy from January 2012 to March 2020 at the Shizuoka Cancer Center. The short- and long-term outcomes of RG and LG were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: This study involved 835 LG and 345 RG patients. After propensity score matching, there were 342 patients each in the RG and LG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. RG was associated with a significantly longer operative time and lower amylase concentration in the drainage fluid on the first postoperative day than LG. Furthermore, the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications in the RG was lower than that in the LG (4.4% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.015). The survival of the RG and LG groups was equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: RG reduced the risk of intra-abdominal infectious complications in comparison with LG in the propensity score-matched analysis. Patients treated by the two approaches showed equivalent survival.

The Effect of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer on Postoperative Gallstone Formation.

BACKGROUND: Gallstones are known to occur quite frequently after gastrectomy. Most of the studies about postoperative cholelithiasis have focused on open gastrectomy, whereas laparoscopic gastrectomy has recently gained popularity as a type of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, the efficacy of MIS in preventing post-gastrectomy gallstone formation remains to be elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of gallstone formation after MIS for clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer. METHODS: A total of 1166 patients undergoing gastrectomy for clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer between 2009 and 2016 were included in this study. Gallstones were detected on abdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with postoperative gallstone formation. RESULTS: Gallstone formation was observed in 174 patients (15%), of whom 22 (2%) experienced symptomatic cholelithiasis. In multivariate analysis, the following were identified as risk factors for post-gastrectomy gallstone formation: open approach with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.670 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.110-2.510 (P = 0.014), older age (OR 1.880; 95% CI 1.290-2.730; P < 0.001), high body mass index (OR 1.660; 95% CI 1.140-2.420; P = 0.008), Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction (OR 1.770; 95% CI 1.230-2.530; P = 0.002), hepatic branch vagotomy (OR 1.600; 95% CI 1.050-2.440; P = 0.029), and intra-abdominal infectious complications (OR 3.040; 95% CI 1.680-5.490; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that MIS along with the preservation of the hepatic vagus nerve and non-RY reconstruction could help prevent post-gastrectomy gallstone development.

Prediction of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in Stage II/III gastric cancer treatment based on comprehensive gene expression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies to identify predictive biomarkers of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 after gastrectomy in Stage II/III gastric cancer patients have been done; however, more clarity and understanding are needed. Our aim in the present study was to identify biomarkers predicting benefit due to S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy using comprehensive gene expression analysis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 and 46 patients not receiving S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy after gastrectomy for gastric cancer treatment between January 2014 and December 2016. Hierarchical clustering analysis was performed based on the gene expression data obtained using cDNA microarray. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using thresholds of absolute fold changes of > 4.0 and a false discovery rate P value of < 0.01. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis and GO network visualization were performed using the ClueGO app in Cytoscape. RESULTS: Hierarchical clustering analysis in patients treated with S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy revealed two clusters with favorable and unfavorable survival outcomes. We identified 147 upregulated DEGs and 192 downregulated DEGs in the favorable outcome group. GO analysis to identify significantly upregulated genes showed enrichment in immune-related genes and GO terms. Upregulation of these immune-related genes was not associated with survival in patients not receiving S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The upregulation and enrichment of immune-related genes and GO terms may be predictive biomarkers in patients who would benefit from adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy to treat Stage II/III gastric cancer.

Preventive effect on delayed gastric emptying of preserving the infra-pyloric vein in laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has the postoperative advantages of a better quality of life and less weight loss than distal gastrectomy. However, postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) due to antral hypomotility can be a problem. Although preserving the infra-pyloric vein (IPV) is reported to improve congestion of the antrum and prevent DGE, the benefits of this procedure have not been confirmed. The present study aimed to clarify the preventive effect on DGE of preserving the IPV. METHODS: A total of 148 patients [IPV-preserved (IPVP): 78 patients and IPV-non-preserved (IPVN): 70 patients] who underwent laparoscopic and robotic PPG (LRPPG) for early gastric cancer were enrolled in this study. The clinicopathologic characteristics and incidence of DGE were compared between the groups. The nutritional risk index (NRI) at 1, 2, and 3 years after the operation and the relapse-free survival (RFS) were also compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups. DGE was observed in 15 of 148 patients (10.1%). The incidence of DGE did not differ markedly between the 2 groups (IPVP vs. IPVN; 11.5% vs. 8.6% p = 0.596). There were no significant differences in other complications between the groups either (IPVP vs. IPVN; 19.2% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.838). The NRI and 3-year RFS were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Regarding LRPPG, preserving the IPV did not help prevent DGE and resulted in no significant difference in the outcomes.

Driver gene alterations and activated signaling pathways toward malignant progression of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Mutually exclusive KIT and PDGFRA mutations are considered to be the earliest events in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), but insufficient for their malignant progression. Herein, we aimed to identify driver genes and signaling pathways relevant to GIST progression. We investigated genetic profiles of 707 driver genes, including mutations, gene fusions, copy number gain or loss, and gene expression for 65 clinical specimens of surgically dissected GIST, consisting of six metastatic tumors and 59 primary tumors from stomach, small intestine, rectum, and esophagus. Genetic alterations included oncogenic mutations and amplification-dependent expression enhancement for oncogenes (OG), and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and expression reduction for tumor suppressor genes (TSG). We assigned activated OG and inactivated TSG to 27 signaling pathways, the activation of which was compared between malignant GIST (metastasis and high-risk GIST) and less malignant GIST (low- and very low-risk GIST). Integrative molecular profiling indicated that a greater incidence of genetic alterations of driver genes was detected in malignant GIST (96%, 22 of 23) than in less malignant GIST (73%, 24 of 33). Malignant GIST samples groups showed mutations, LOH, and aberrant expression dominantly in driver genes associated with signaling pathways of PI3K (PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN) and the cell cycle (RB1, CDK4, and CDKN1B). Additionally, we identified potential PI3K-related genes, the expression of which was upregulated (SNAI1 and TPX2) or downregulated (BANK1) in malignant GIST. Based on our observations, we propose that inhibition of PI3K pathway signals might potentially be an effective therapeutic strategy against malignant progression of GIST.

Impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage II/III gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative wait time is affected by various factors, and a certain time is needed before surgery. There is a concern that cancer treatment delay can lead to poor survival. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage (cStage) II/III gastric cancer. METHODS: The study included patients with cStage II/III primary gastric cancer undergoing surgery between 2002 and 2012. Preoperative wait time was defined as the time from endoscopy for initial diagnosis to surgery. Patients were divided into the following three groups according to wait time: short wait group (≤ 30 days), intermediate wait group (> 30 and ≤ 60 days), and long wait group (> 60 and ≤ 90 days). Patient characteristics and survival were compared among the groups. RESULTS: This study included 467 male (67%) and 229 female (33%) patients, and the median patient age was 67 years. The numbers of cStage II and III patients were 332 (48%) and 364 (52%), respectively. The median wait time was 45 days. The body mass index was lower in the short wait group than in the other groups. A shorter wait time tended to be associated with a more advanced cStage. Although survival was significantly worse in the short wait group than in the long wait group, wait time was not identified as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Preoperative wait time up to 90 days does not affect survival in patients with cStage II/III gastric cancer.

Impact of Malnutrition After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer on Long-Term Survival.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative malnutrition can worsen morbidity and mortality; however, the role of postgastrectomy nutritional status remains unclear. Our purpose was to clarify whether malnutrition after gastrectomy could predict long-term survival. METHODS: Patients with pathological stage I, II, and III gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy between 2002 and 2013 were included. The nutrition risk index (NRI) was evaluated before and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after gastrectomy. The patients were divided into normal (NRI > 97.5) or malnutrition (NRI ≤ 97.5) groups, and we compared the correlations of clinicopathological characteristics, surgical treatment, and overall survival between the two groups. RESULTS: Among the 760 participants, patients in the malnutrition group were significantly older and had higher incidences of comorbidity and advanced cancer than the patients in the normal group. Multivariate analysis showed that overall survival was poorer in the malnutrition group before gastrectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68] and at 1 month (HR 1.77), 3 months (HR 2.18), 6 months (HR 1.81) and 12 months (HR 2.17) after gastrectomy (all p < 0.01). Malnutrition at 1 and 3 months after gastrectomy was significantly associated with poor cause-specific survival. Total gastrectomy, preoperative malnutrition, older age, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent risk factors of postoperative malnutrition at 12 months postgastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition before gastrectomy and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after gastrectomy significantly and adversely affects overall survival. Nutritional interventions to lessen the impact of postoperative malnutrition offer hope for prolonged survival.