An improvement in the reconstruction of digestive tract after total gastrectomy: ultra-short cecum.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and complications of ultra-short cecum (USC) in the reconstruction of digestive tract after total gastrectomy (TG) for the alleviation of reflux esophagitis and to determine its effect on long-term nutritional status. Methods: Patients who underwent TG with USC or normal cecum (NC) at a single institution between June 2018 and December 2020 were included in this study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined, and the primary endpoints were reflux esophagitis, anastomotic leakage and postoperative nutritional status. The long-term nutritional status was evaluated by the change trend of laboratory blood tests, including total protein, prealbumin, hemoglobin, and total leukocytes. Results: Totally 240 cases were included in the final analysis out of 496 patients who received TG with USC or NC. Postoperative reflux esophagitis was significantly higher in the NC group than in the USC group (24.7% versus 7.7%, P = 0.001), and the NC group had a higher incidence of severe esophagitis symptoms compared to the USC group (13.6% versus 0.00%, P < 0.001), and the incidence of anastomotic leakage in the USC group was similar to that in the NC group (9.0% versus 6.2%, P = 0.6). There was no significant difference in long-term nutritional status between the USC and NC groups in the two years following the surgery (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Ultra-short cecum after total gastrectomy should be more actively recommended due to its significant reduction in reflux esophagitis and similar incidence of anastomotic leakage and nutritional status compared with normal cecum after total gastrectomy.

Long-term nutritional status after total gastrectomy was comparable to proximal gastrectomy but with much less reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis.

Aim: To compare the long-term nutritional status, reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis, between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG). Methods: Patients who underwent PG or TG in this single institution between January 2014 and December 2016 were included in this study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) by the demographic and pathological characteristics was performed to compare the long-term outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint was long-term nutritional status, and the second endpoints were reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis. Long-term nutritional status was valued by percentage of body mass index (%BMI), body weight, and blood test including total protein, prealbumin, hemoglobin and total leukocytes. Results: Totally 460 patients received PG or TG in our institution for the treatment between January 2014 and December 2016 and according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria 226 cases were included in this study finally. There was no significant difference as to nutritional status in the end of first 5 years after PG or TG. While reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis were significantly higher in the PG group than in the TG group (54.4% versus 26.8%, p < 0.001; 14.9% versus 4.5%, p=0.015; respectively). Overall survival rates were similar between the two groups after PSM (5-year survival rates: 65.4% versus 61.5% in the PG and TG groups, respectively; p = 0.54). The rate of carcinoma of remnant stomach after PG was 3.5% in this group of patients. Conclusions: TG should be more aggressively recommended for the similar nutritional status, significantly lower reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis, and free of carcinoma of remnant stomach compared with PG.

No long-term survival benefit with sustained-release 5-fluorouracil implants in patients with stages II and III gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of gastric cancer in an advanced stage remains poor. The exact efficacy of the use of intraoperative sustained-release chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced-stage gastric cancer is still unelucidated. AIM: To explore the long-term survival benefit of using sustained-release 5-FU implants in stage II and stage III gastric cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with gastric cancer in a locally advanced stage and who underwent an R0 radical resection between Jan 2014, to Dec 2016, in this single institution were included. Patients with pathological diagnoses other than adenocarcinoma were excluded. All included patients were grouped according to whether intraoperative sustained-release (SR) chemotherapy with 5-FU was used or not (NSR). The primary end-point was 5-year overall survival. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test was used to analyze the overall survival of patients and Cox analysis was used to analyze prognosis factors of these patients. RESULTS: In total, there were 563 patients with gastric cancer with locally advanced stage, who underwent an R0 radical resection. 309 patients were included in the final analysis. 219 (70.9%) were men, with an average age of 58.25 years. Furthermore, 56 (18.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 191 (61.8%) were in TNM stage III. In addition, 158 patients received intraoperative sustained-release chemotherapy with 5-FU and were included in the SR group, while the other 161 patients were included in the NSR group. The overall complication rate was 12.94% in the whole group and 10.81%, 16.46% in SR and NSR groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival and complication rate (P > 0.05). The multivariate cox analysis indicated that only N Stage and neoadjuvant therapy were independent influencing factors of survival. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative sustained-release chemotherapy usage with 5-FU, did not improve the survival of patients who underwent an R0 radical resection in locally advanced stage of gastric cancer.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer based on laboratory tests is safe: a single Chinese center analysis.

PURPOSE: About 15%-40% of gastric cancer patients have peritoneal metastasis, which leads to poor prognosis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is considered to be an effective treatment for these patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of HIPEC in patients with gastric cancer diagnosed from laboratory tests. METHODS: The clinical and pathological data of 63 patients with gastric cancer who underwent HIPEC in 2017-2021 were prospectively recorded. Fifty-five patients underwent cytoreductive surgery + HIPEC, and eight patients received HIPEC alone. The factors associated with HIPEC safety and efficacy were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: The average patient age was 54.84 years and 68.3% of patients were male. Moreover, 79.4% of patients had a peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) score of ≤ 7 and 61.9% had a completeness of cytoreduction score of 0. Because of peritoneal metastasis, 29 patients (46.03%) were classified as stage IV. Laboratory tests showed no differences in pre-HIPEC blood test results compared to post-HIPEC results after removing the effects of surgery. HIPEC treatment did not cause obvious liver or kidney damage. Serum calcium levels decreased significantly after HIPEC (P = 0.0018). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score correlated with the patient's physical function and improved after HIPEC (P = 0.0045). In coagulation tests, FDP (P < 0.0001) and D-dimer (P < 0.0001) levels increased significantly and CA242 (P = 0.0159), CA724 (P < 0.0001), and CEA (P < 0.0014) levels decreased significantly after HIPEC. Completeness of cytoreduction score was an independent prognostic factor. HIPEC did not show a survival benefit in patients with gastric cancer (P = 0.5505). CONCLUSION: HIPEC is a safe treatment for patients with gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis based on the laboratory tests. However, the efficacy of this treatment on gastric-derived peritoneal metastases requires further confirmation.

Dynamic monitoring revealed a slightly prolonged waiting time for total gastrectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing the short-term complications.

We aimed to determine the pattern of delay and its effect on the short-term outcomes of total gastrectomy before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Overlaid line graphs were used to visualize the dynamic changes in the severity of the pandemic, number of gastric cancer patients, and waiting time for a total gastrectomy. We observed a slightly longer waiting time during the pandemic (median: 28.00 days, interquartile range: 22.00-34.75) than before the pandemic (median: 25.00 days, interquartile range: 18.00-34.00; p = 0.0071). Moreover, we study the effect of delayed surgery (waiting time > 30 days) on short-term outcomes using postoperative complications, extreme value of laboratory results, and postoperative stay. In patients who had longer waiting times, we did not observe worse short-term complication rates (grade II-IV: 15% vs. 19%, p = 0.27; grade III-IV: 7.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.51, the short waiting group vs. the prolonged waiting group) or a higher risk of a longer POD (univariable: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80-1.49, p = 0.59; multivariable: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.78-1.55, p = 0.59). Patients in the short waiting group, rather than in the delayed surgery group, had an increased risk of bleeding in analyses of laboratory results (plasma prothrombin activity, hemoglobin, and hematocrit). A slightly prolonged preoperative waiting time during COVID-19 pandemic might not influence the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent total gastrectomy.