Laparoscopic Resection for Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction Improves Postoperative Outcomes: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive resection for upper gastrointestinal tumors has been associated with favorable results. However, the role of laparoscopic surgery (LS) in the multimodal treatment of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction needs further investigation. METHODS: Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent gastrectomy between 2005 and 2017 were assessed. Outcomes of patients undergoing LS were compared with those of patients treated with a conventional open resection (OR) using a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS: Curative resection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction was performed in 417 patients during the study period. Beginning in June 2014, the majority of patients underwent LS (n = 72) and they were matched with 72 patients who were treated with an OR. The majority of patients treated with LS (89%) had advanced cancer (UICC stages II and III) and 82% of them received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. LS was significantly associated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (26 (9-62) vs. 21 (4-46), P = .007), a lower 90-day major complication rate (13 vs. 26%, P = .035), and a lower length of hospital stay (14 vs. 16 days, P = .001). After a median follow-up time of 32 months, 1-year overall survival rate was higher after LS than after OR (93 vs. 74%, P = .126); however, results did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: LS for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction is feasible and significantly reduces major postoperative morbidity resulting in a reduced length of hospital stay. Therefore, LS should be preferably considered for the curative treatment of patients with these malignancies.

Evaluation of Anastomotic Leak after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Typical Time Point of Occurrence, Mode of Diagnosis, Value of Routine Radiocontrast Agent Studies and Therapeutic Options.

BACKGROUND: Data on the typical time point of occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer are currently scarce. Therefore, the usefulness of routine radiocontrast agent studies (RRCS) for testing proper healing of the anastomosis after esophagectomy remains unclear. Furthermore, preferred available tools to diagnose postoperative AL and therapeutic options are still under debate. METHODS: We present a retrospective analysis of 328 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2005 and 2015. A RRCS has been performed to date in our center on the fifth postoperative day (POD), before returning to normal oral intake. RESULTS: In total, 49 of 328 patients developed AL after esophagectomy (15%). A total of 11 patients (23%) developed AL before the RRCS and 34 patients (69%) after an unremarkable RRCS; and 4 patients (8%) with AL were diagnosed by RRCS, resulting in overall sensitivity of 16%. The median time point of occurrence of AL was POD 9, the majority of AL (84%) occurred between POD 1 and 19. Computed tomography led to the diagnosis of AL in 41% of patients. The most frequent therapy of AL was stenting in 47% of patients. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was used in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of AL occurred within the first 3 weeks after esophagectomy without a typical time point. In our series, RRCS on the fifth POD had a low sensitivity of 16%. Therefore, standardized RRCS and fasting till the examination cannot be generally recommended. In case of clinical suspicion of AL, computed tomography of the chest and abdomen with oral contrast agent should be performed, followed by endoscopy. Endoscopic stent placement remains the standard therapy of AL in our center. Endoscopic vacuum therapy evolves as it is an interesting alternative therapeutic option and can be combined with stenting in selected cases.

Routine Radiologic Contrast Agent Examination After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer Is Not Useful.

Many studies have showed that routine upper gastrointestinal contrast agent examinations (RCE) for testing the patency of the anastomosis after esophagectomy or the stapler line after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be recommended due to low sensitivity. However, the clinical value of RCE after gastrectomy for gastric cancer remains unclear. We have retrospectively analyzed the clinical course of 377 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer in our institution between 2005 and 2015. To date, we have performed a RCE on the fifth postoperative day before removal of the nasogastric tube and return to oral intake. In total, we have observed 14 anastomotic leaks (AL) (4%) after oncologic gastrectomy. Four AL (28.6%) occurred before the scheduled RCE on the fifth postoperative day (POD) and 7 (50%) late AL after POD 5. Three patients (21.4%) without any clinical symptoms were diagnosed by the RCE. Sensitivity of RCE was 50%. A significant percentage of patients with AL was diagnosed by computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen (50%). The standard therapy for AL after gastrectomy was endoscopic stent placement (n = 11), including three cases of stenting after surgical revision. Based on our data, we cannot recommend a RCE after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The majority of AL occurs before or after a RCE and the sensitivity of the examination is low. In case of clinical suspicion of AL, a CT scan (with oral contrast agent) should be performed. In unclear cases, endoscopy is the preferable method providing the option of direct treatment.

The Impact of Obesity on Outcomes Following Resection for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is generally considered to be associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality following intraabdominal cancer surgery. However, recent reports showed that overweight patients may have a lower risk for adverse postoperative outcomes and this observation has been described as the 'obesity paradox'. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the impact of obesity on outcomes after resection for gastric cancer. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent resection for gastric cancer between 2005 and 2012 were assessed. Patient characteristics, postoperative outcomes and long-term survivals were compared between patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 and <30. RESULTS: Resection for gastric cancer was performed in 249 patients. BMI ≥30 was identified in 49 patients. Obese patients with BMI ≥30 were more frequently diagnosed with diabetes (31 vs. 16%, p = 0.015). Resection for gastric cancer in obese patients was significantly associated with longer duration of surgery (278 vs. 243 min, p < 0.001), longer duration of hospital stay (18 vs. 16 days, p = 0.028), increased postoperative morbidity (49 vs. 33%, p = 0.037), and increased postoperative mortality (10 vs. 3%, p = 0.028). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with BMI ≥30 and patients with BMI <30 (5-year OS rate: 59 vs. 62%, p = 0.587). CONCLUSION: Obesity may complicate resection for gastric cancer increasing the duration of surgical procedure, hospital stay and postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, BMI did not predict OS in our patients. Consequently, BMI may be too simple as a parameter to evaluate sophisticated interactions between different body fat compartments and inflammatory and immune responses and thus to predict long-term oncologic outcomes.