Great Debate: Chemoradiation Should be Added to Chemotherapy as a Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with resectable gastric cancer present with locally advanced disease and warrant neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on level 1 evidence. However, the incremental benefit of adding radiation to chemotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment strategy for these patients is less clear. METHODS: While awaiting the results of two ongoing randomized clinical trials attempting to specifically address this question (TOPGEAR and CRITICS-II), this article presents the debate between two gastric cancer surgery experts supporting each side of the argument on the use or omission of neoadjuvant radiation in this setting. RESULTS: On the one hand, neoadjuvant radiation may be better tolerated compared with modern triplet chemotherapy and may be associated with higher rates of major pathologic response. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that radiation may offer a survival benefit when the tumor is located at the gastroesophageal junction or there is concern for a margin-positive resection. However, in the setting of adequate surgery, no survival benefit has been demonstrated by adding radiation to modern chemotherapy, likely reflecting the fact that death from gastric cancer is a result of distant recurrence, which is not addressed by local treatment such as radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: While awaiting the results of the TOPGEAR and CRITICS-II trials, this discussion of current evidence can facilitate the refinement of an optimal neoadjuvant therapy strategy in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis is a critical prognostic factor for patients with gastric carcinoma (GC). Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has the potential to identify the initial site of draining lymph node metastasis and reduce the extent of surgical lymphadenectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SLN mapping in GC. METHODS: The study enrolled 129 GC patients undergoing total or partial gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and indocyanine green fluorescence-guided SLN mapping. The primary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity of SLN mapping. The secondary outcomes were clinicopathologic factors associated with SLN mapping accuracy and successful SLN mapping. RESULTS: The SLN detection rate in this study was 86.8 %. The study had an overall NPV of 83.1 % and an overall sensitivity of 65.8 %. The NPV was found to be significantly higher in the patients with no lymphovascular invasion (LVI) than in those with LVI (96.0 % vs 59.3 %; p < 0.001) and in the patients whose pathologic T (pT) stage lower than 3 than in those whose T stage was 3 or higher (92.0 % vs 66.7 %; p = 0.009). The sensitivity of SLN mapping was 50 % in the patients with no LVI and 33 % in the patients with a pT stage lower than 3. CONCLUSION: The study results showed that for patients with early-stage GC with no LVI, negative SLN findings may represent a potential additive predictor indicating the absence of regional LN metastasis. However, given the low sensitivity rates noted, further research is needed to identify specific patient populations that may benefit from SLN mapping in GC.

Patient satisfaction with women vs men surgical interns and senior residents.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is critical for referrals and reimbursement of surgical faculty but remains poorly characterized for residents. We investigated whether patient evaluations of surgical trainees vary by resident gender. METHODS: Surgical inpatients evaluated surgical resident care postoperatively after positively identifying trainees. Evaluations (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Surveys (S-CAHPS)) were scored by the "top-box" method, stratified by training level, and compared between women and men residents. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of patients participated (n â€‹= â€‹324/357). Patients recognized women interns less than men (75.0 â€‹% vs 87.2 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.01). S-CAHPS scores for women vs men interns were equivalent except for spending sufficient time with patients (75.6 â€‹% vs 88.0 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.02). For senior residents, there was no difference in patient recognition of women vs men (83.9 â€‹% vs 85.2 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.91) or in any S-CAHPS scores (p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gendered differences in patient evaluations of surgical trainees exist for interns but resolve by senior years. Future work should explore how patient evaluations can support trainee development while ensuring patients recognize the role of surgical residents regardless of gender.