Recurrence after preoperative chemotherapy and surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: In most western European countries perioperative chemotherapy is a part of standard curative treatment for gastric cancer. Nevertheless, recurrence rates remain high after multimodality treatment. This study examines patterns of recurrence in patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy with surgery for gastric cancer in a real-world setting. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015 who underwent at least preoperative chemotherapy and a gastrectomy with curative intent (cT1N+/cT2-4a,X; any cN; cM0) in 18 Dutch hospitals were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional data on chemotherapy and recurrence were collected from medical records. Rates, patterns, and timing of recurrence were examined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to determine prognostic factors for recurrence. RESULTS: 408 patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 27.8 months, 36.8% of the gastric cancer patients had a recurrence of which the majority (88.8%) had distant metastasis. The 1-year recurrence-free survival was 71.8%. The risk of recurrence was higher in patients with an ypN+ stage (HR 4.92, 95% CI 3.35-7.24), partial or no tumor regression (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.22-5.64), 3 instead of ≥ 6 chemotherapy cycles (HR 3.04, 95% CI 1.99-4.63), R1 resection (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.02-2.26), and < 15 resected lymph nodes (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.14-2.37). CONCLUSION: A considerable amount of gastric cancer patients who were treated with curative intent developed a recurrence despite surgery and perioperative treatment. The majority developed distant metastases, therefore, multimodality treatment approaches should be focused on the prevention of distant rather than locoregional recurrences to improve survival.

Impact of Centralizing Gastric Cancer Surgery on Treatment, Morbidity, and Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Centralization of gastric cancer surgery is thought to improve outcome and has been imposed in the Netherlands since 2012. This study analyzes the effect of centralization in terms of treatment outcome and survival in the Eastern part of the Netherlands. METHODS: All gastric cancer patients without distant metastases who underwent a gastrectomy in six hospitals in the Eastern part of the Netherlands between 2008 and 2011 (pre-centralization) and 2013-2016 (post-centralization) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumor characteristics and treatment outcomes (duration of surgery, blood loss, resection margin, lymphadenectomy, chemotherapy, postoperative complications and hospital stay, and overall and disease-free survival) were analyzed and compared between pre- and post-centralization. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients were included pre-centralization and 106 patients post-centralization. Patient and tumor characteristics were almost similar in the two periods. After centralization, more patients were treated with perioperative chemotherapy (25 vs. 42% p < 0.01). The proportion of patients treated with an adequate lymphadenectomy (21 vs. 93% p < 0.01) and laparoscopic surgery (6 vs. 40% p < 0.01) increased significantly (p < 0.01). The amount of cardiac complications (16 vs. 7.5% p < 0.05) decreased; however, complications needing a re-intervention were comparable (42 vs. 40% p = 0.79). Median hospital stay decreased from 10 to 8 days (p < 0.01). A 30-day mortality did not differ significantly (4.2 vs. 1.9%). A 1-year overall (78 vs. 80% p = 0.17) and disease-free survival (73 vs. 74% p = 0.66) remained stable. DISCUSSION: Centralizing gastric cancer treatment in the Eastern part of the Netherlands resulted in improved lymph node harvesting and a successful introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomies. Centralization has not translated into improved mortality, and other variables may also have led to these improved outcomes. Further research using a nationwide population-based study will be needed to confirm these data.