Development of a reliable surgical quality assurance tool for gastrectomy in oncological trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite its recognized importance, there is currently no reliable tool for surgical quality assurance (SQA) of gastrectomy in surgical oncology. The aim of this study was to develop an SQA tool for gastrectomy and to apply this tool within the ADDICT Trial in order to assess the extent and completeness of lymphadenectomy. METHODS: The operative steps for D1+ and D2 gastrectomy have been previously described in the literature and ADDICT trial manual. Two researchers also performed fieldwork in the UK and Japan to document key operative steps through photographs and semi-structured interviews with expert surgeons. This provided the steps that were used as the framework for the SQA tool. Sixty-two photographic cases from the ADDICT Trial were rated by three independent surgeons. Generalizability (G) theory determined inter-rater reliability. D-studies examined the effect of varying the number of assessors and photographic series they rated. Chi-square assessed intra-rater reliability, comparing how the individual assessor's responses corresponded to their global rating for extent of lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The tool comprised 20 items, including 19 anatomical landmarks and a global rating score. Overall reliability had G-coefficient of 0.557. Internal consistency was measured with a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.869 and Chi-square confirmed intra-rater reliability for each assessor as < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: A photographic surgical quality assurance tool is presented for gastrectomy. Using this tool, the assessor can reliably determine not only the quality but also the extent of the lymphadenectomy performed based on remaining anatomy rather than the excised specimen.

Laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer: short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (SENORITA).

BACKGROUND: Sentinel node navigation surgery reduces the extent of gastric and lymph node dissection, and may improve quality of life. The benefit and harm of laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) for early gastric cancer is unknown. The SENORITA (SEntinel Node ORIented Tailored Approach) trial investigated the pathological and surgical outcomes of LSNNS compared with laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG) with lymph node dissection. METHODS: The SENORITA trial was an investigator-initiated, open-label, parallel-assigned, non-inferiority, multicentre RCT conducted in Korea. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival. The secondary endpoints, morbidity and mortality within 30 days of surgery, are reported in the present study. RESULTS: A total of 580 patients were randomized to LSG (292) or LSNNS (288). Surgery was undertaken in 527 patients (LSG 269, LSNNS 258). LSNNS could be performed according to the protocol in 245 of 258 patients, and a sentinel node basin was detected in 237 (96·7 per cent) Stomach-preserving surgery was carried out in 210 of 258 patients (81·4 per cent). Postoperative complications occurred in 51 patients in the LSG group (19·0 per cent) and 40 (15·5 per cent) in the LSNNS group (P = 0·294). Complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher occurred in 16 (5·9 per cent) and 13 (5·0 per cent) patients in the LSG and LSNNS groups respectively (P = 0·647). CONCLUSION: The rate and severity of complications following LSNNS for early gastric cancer are comparable to those after LSG with lymph node dissection. Registration number: NCT01804998 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La cirugía de navegación del ganglio centinela (sentinel node navigation surgery, SNNS) reduce la extensión de la resección gástrica y ganglionar, y puede mejorar la calidad de vida. Se desconoce el beneficio y el daño de la cirugía de navegación del ganglio centinela por vía laparoscópica (laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery, LSNNS) para el cáncer gástrico precoz. El ensayo clínico SENORITA investigó los resultados patológicos y quirúrgicos de LSNNS en comparación con la gastrectomía laparoscópica estándar (laparoscopic gastrectomy, LSG) con disección ganglionar (lymph node dissection, LND). MÉTODOS: El ensayo SENORITA fue un ensayo multicéntrico aleatorizado y controlado, iniciado por investigadores, abierto, con asignación a grupos paralelos y de no inferioridad llevado a cabo en Corea. El resultado primario fue la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los 3 años. En el presente estudio, se describen los resultados secundarios correspondientes a morbilidad y mortalidad a los 30 días del postoperatorio. RESULTADOS: Un total de 580 pacientes fueron aleatorizados a LG (n = 292) o LSNNS (n = 288). La cirugía se realizó en 527 pacientes (LG 269, LSNNS 258). LSNNS pudo ser realizada de acuerdo con el protocolo en 245 de 258 pacientes y en 237 de 245 pacientes (96,7%) se detectó un ganglio centinela. La cirugía con preservación del estómago se realizó en 210 de 258 pacientes (81,4%). Las complicaciones postoperatorias se presentaron en 51 pacientes del grupo LSG (19,0%) y en 40 pacientes (15,5%) del grupo LSNNS (P = 0,294). Las complicaciones grado III o mayor de Clavien-Dindo se detectaron en 16 (5,9%) y 13 pacientes (5,0%) de los grupos LSG y LSNNS, respectivamente (P = 0,647). CONCLUSIÓN: El porcentaje y la gravedad de las complicaciones tras LSNNS para cancer gástrico precoz son comparables a la LSG con LND.

Randomized clinical trial of preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine.

BACKGROUND: Skin antiseptic agents are used to prevent surgical-site infection (SSI); few trials have reported the superiority of any specific agent in clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. This RCT was designed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent clean-contaminated upper gastrointestinal or hepatobiliary-pancreatic open surgery between 2011 and 2014 were assigned randomly to either chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of SSI within 30 days of surgery. Secondary endpoints included causative organisms and risk factors for SSI. RESULTS: A total of 534 patients were randomized; 31 (5·8 per cent) developed an SSI. There was no difference in the overall SSI rate in the chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine groups: 15 of 267 (5·6 per cent) and 16 of 267 (6·0 per cent) respectively (P = 0·853). The most common causative organism was Enterococcus faecalis. In subgroup analysis, biliary-pancreatic surgery had a higher SSI rate (26 of 127, 20·5 per cent) than upper gastrointestinal (2 of 204, 1·0 per cent) and hepatic (3 of 203, 1·5 per cent) resection. Both age (60 years and over) and type of incision were associated with the risk of SSI. CONCLUSION: No difference was detected between chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine antiseptics for prevention of SSI. Registration number: NCT01495117 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Prognostic significance of peritoneal washing cytology in patients with gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Positive peritoneal washing cytology is a poor prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer. The right therapeutic approach for this condition has not been well documented. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer with suspected serosal invasion and peritoneal washing cytology at the Korean National Cancer Centre between May 2001 and December 2009 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathological factors and overall survival were analysed with respect to the cytological results and presence of peritoneal metastases. Prognostic factors were analysed in patients with positive cytology but without overt peritoneal metastases. RESULTS: A total of 1072 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 900 had negative cytology (C0 group) and 172 had positive cytology (C1 group). No peritoneal metastases (P0) were found in 830 patients (92·2 per cent) in the C0 group. Peritoneal metastases (P1) were found in 76 patients (44·2 per cent) in the C1 group. Median overall survival times in the P0 C1, P1 C0 and P1 C1 subgroups were 20·0, 14·0 and 10·0 months respectively. Multivariable analysis of the P0 C1 subgroup revealed that clinical N0-2 category and gastric resection were significantly associated with better prognosis (median survival 24·0 versus 13·0 months for N0-2 versus N3, and 21·0 versus 4·0 months for resected versus non-resected). CONCLUSION: Positive washing cytology in patients with gastric cancer is a negative prognostic factor for patients with, as well as those without, overt peritoneal metastases. Resection is an option in patients with clinical stage N0-2 disease without peritoneal metastases but with a positive washing cytology finding.

Surgical stress after robot-assisted distal gastrectomy and its economic implications.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of reports evaluating the outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical stress response and costs of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) with those of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). METHODS: This prospective study compared a cohort of patients who had RADG with a cohort that underwent conventional LADG for early gastric cancer between March 2010 and May 2011. The surgical outcomes including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and complications, surgical stress response and overall costs were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in the RADG group and 120 in the LADG group. There were no conversions. Median duration of operation was longer in the RADG group (218 (interquartile range 200-254) versus 140 (118-175) min; P < 0·001). Postoperative abdominal drain production was less (P = 0·001) and postoperative performance status was worse (P < 0·001) in the RADG group. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on postoperative days 1 and 3, and interleukin (IL) 6 level on the third postoperative day, were lower in the LADG compared with the RADG group (CRP: P = 0·002 and P = 0·014 respectively; IL-6: P < 0·001). Costs for robotic surgery were much higher than for laparoscopic surgery (difference €3189). CONCLUSION: RADG did not reduce surgical stress compared with LADG. The substantial RADG costs due to robotic system expenses may not be justified.

Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic disease has gained increasing popularity. A laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is technically simple and has been adopted as the preferred method in many centers. However, there is limited information on the outcomes of the laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and to evaluate its efficacy compared with open distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: From February 1995 to March 2006, 31 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 167 patients underwent open distal pancreatectomy at Seoul National University Hospital and Bundang Seoul National University Hospital. A case-control design was used with 2:1 matching to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery. Among 167 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy, 62 patients whose age, gender, and pathology were similar to those of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were selected for this study. The operation time, intraoperative transfusion requirements, duration of postoperative hospitalization, complications, mortality, recurrence, and hospital charges were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operation time, rate of intraoperative transfusions, complications, recurrence, or mortality between the two groups. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with a statistically significant shorter hospital stay (11.5 days vs 13.5 days; p = 0.049), but with more expensive hospital charges than open distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a clinically safe and effective procedure for benign and borderline pancreatic tumors.

Alpha-fetoprotein is a significant prognostic factor for gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score matching analysis after curative resection.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of alpha-fetoprotein positive gastric cancer (AFPP-GC) remains elusive so far due to disparities in cohort size and baseline characteristics in previous studies. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis as well as multivariable model was performed for unbiased evaluation of the outcome in AFPGC. METHODS: Among 3034 gastric cancer patients who underwent curative gastric cancer surgery (R0, M0) at the National Cancer Center, Korea between 2002 and 2007, we identified 97 patients being positive for AFP either by elevation of serum-AFP levels >10 µg/L or by immunohistochemical staining. Due to marked disparities in baseline characteristics and cohort size, propensity-score-matching was performed which matched 87 AFPP-GC patients to the same number of AFP-negative gastric cancer (AFPN-GC) patients. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2-test. Survival curves were compared using the Kaplan-Meier-method and multivariable regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of AFP-positivity while adjusting the effects of confounding variables. RESULTS: AFPP-GC and AFPN-GC patients revealed marked disparities in patient cohorts. After PSM, groups were balanced for age, sex, tumor size, BMI, tumor location, grade of differentiation, presence of lymphatic vessel infiltration (LVI), Lauren histologic type and stage distribution. In multivariable regression analysis of the PSM-groups, only AFP-positivity and pathologic stage were predictive for overall survival (HR 2.98, CI 95% {1.7-5.1}, p < 0.0001). Five-year-survival rates were significantly worse for AFPP-GC patients (57.9% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.014). Recurrence was significantly more frequent in AFPP-GC patients (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: AFP can be considered as an independent negative predictor of overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with gastric cancer.

Role of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: result of a case-control study from a large volume hospital.

AIMS: According to the recent Japanese Gastric Cancer Association's gastric cancer treatment guidelines, bursectomy is recommended for tumors penetrating the serosa of the posterior gastric wall. However, there is still little data to show whether bursectomy improves patient survival. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of bursectomy for subserosa or serosa-positive gastric cancer in terms of overall survival. METHOD: From April 2001 to December 2006, 470 patients underwent curative resection for macroscopically subserosa or serosa-positive gastric cancer. These patients were grouped according to whether bursectomy was performed or not (bursectomy+/bursectomy-). Clinicopathological characteristics and incidence of complications were compared between the groups. The overall survival rates were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in morbidity and mortality between the bursectomy+ and bursectomy- groups. In the multivariable analysis for overall survival, bursectomy was not a significant independent factor (p = 0.978). In the subgroup analysis for clinical and pathological stage III and IV, and tumors penetrating the serosa of the posterior gastric wall, bursectomy did not have significant effect on overall survival as well (p = 0.582, 0.453, and 0.532, respectively). In the propensity score-matched patients, bursectomy still showed no significant effect on overall survival (p = 0.804). CONCLUSIONS: Bursectomy is unlikely to improve overall survival in patients with macroscopically subserosa or serosa-positive gastric cancer.

Comparison of surgical performance and short-term clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic surgery in distal gastric cancer.

AIMS: The authors aimed to compare the surgical performance and the short-term clinical outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RADG) with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) in distal gastric cancer patients. METHOD: From April 2009 to August 2010, 62 patients underwent LADG and 30 patients underwent RADG for preoperative stage I distal gastric cancer by one surgeon at the National Cancer Center, Korea. Surgical performance was measured using lymph node (LN) dissection time and number of retrieved LNs, which were viewed as surrogates of technical ease and oncologic quality. RESULTS: In clinicopathologic characteristics, mean age, depth of invasion and stage were significantly different between the LADG and RADG group. Mean dissection time at each LN station was greater in the RADG group, but no significant intergroup difference was found for numbers of retrieved LNs. Furthermore, proximal resection margins were smaller, and hospital costs were higher in the RADG group. In terms of the RADG learning curve, mean LN dissection time was smaller in the late RADG group (n = 15) than in the early RADG group (n = 15) for 4sb/4d, 5, 7-12a stations, but numbers of retrieved LNs per station were similar. CONCLUSION: With the exception of operating time and cost, the numbers of retrieved LNs and the short-term clinical outcomes of RADG were found to be comparable to those of LADG, despite the surgeon's familiarity with LADG and lack of RADG experience. Further studies are needed to evaluate objectively ergonomic comfort and to quantify the patient benefits conferred by robotic surgery.