Role of omentectomy as part of radical surgery for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: A complete omentectomy is recommended as part of radical (sub)total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, but there is little evidence to suggest any survival benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of, and risk factors for, metastases in the greater omentum in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective cohort study (OMEGA trial) of consecutive patients with gastric cancer undergoing (sub)total gastrectomy with complete en bloc omentectomy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. After resection, the omentum was separated from the gastrectomy specimen distal to the gastroepiploic vessels and sent separately for pathological examination. The primary endpoint was the presence of metastases in the greater omentum. RESULTS: Of 100 included patients, five (5·0 per cent) had metastases in the greater omentum. Pathology results showed advanced tumours in all five (pT4b N1 M1, pT4b N2 M1, ypT4a N1 M1, ypT3 N2 M0, ypT3 N3 M0). The resection was microscopically non-radical at the proximal (3) or distal (2) resection margin in all of these patients. Metastases in the greater omentum correlated significantly with a microscopically non-radical resection, tumour expansion in the oesophagus or duodenum, linitis plastica or a proximal gastric tumour with diameter of at least 5 cm, stage III-IV disease and (y)pM1 category. CONCLUSION: In resectable gastric cancer, the incidence of metastases in the greater omentum is low, and when present associated with advanced disease and non-radical features. Thus, omentectomy as part of a radical gastrectomy may be omitted. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02050659 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Biobanking of fresh-frozen endoscopic biopsy specimens from esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The process of preparing endoscopic esophageal adenocarcinoma samples for next-generation DNA/RNA sequencing is poorly described. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility and pitfalls of preparing esophageal adenocarcinoma endoscopic biopsies toward DNA/RNA samples suitable for next-generation sequencing. In this prospective study, four tumor biopsy samples were collected from consecutive esophageal cancer patients during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and fresh-frozen in liquid nitrogen. DNA and RNA were isolated from samples with a tumor percentage of at least 50%. For next-generation sequencing, double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) is required and high-quality RNA preferred. The quantity dsDNA and RNA quantity and quality were assessed with the Nanodrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Biopsy samples of 69 consecutive patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma were included. In five patients (7%), the tumor percentage was less than 50% in all four biopsies. Using a protocol allowing simultaneous DNA and RNA isolation, the median dsDNA yield was 2.4 µg (range 0.1-12.0 µg) and the median RNA yield was 0.5 µg (range 0.01-2.05 µg). The median RNA integrity number of samples that were fresh-frozen within 30 minutes after sampling was 6.7 (range 4.2-8.9) compared with 2.5 (1.8-4.5) for samples that were fresh-frozen after 2 hours. The results from this study show that obtaining dsDNA and RNA for next-generation sequencing from endoscopic esophageal adenocarcinoma samples is feasible. Tumor percentage and dsDNA/RNA yield and quality emphasize the need for sampling multiple biopsies and minimizing the delay before fresh-freezing.

Surgical treatment results of intestinal and diffuse type gastric cancer. Implications for a differentiated therapeutic approach?

AIM: To study the outcome of patients who were surgically treated for primary gastric cancer with specific attention to differences in treatment results for intestinal and diffuse type tumours. METHODS: All patients who underwent a potentially curative gastric resection between 1995 and 2011 in our institute were included. Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were obtained retrospectively. Binary logistic and Cox regression models were used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 132 patients was included. Median follow-up was 53 months. There were no significant differences between patients with intestinal (N = 62) versus diffuse type (N = 70) gastric cancer with regard to the proportion of patients who underwent (neo)adjuvant treatment. Postoperative mortality was 2%. Pathological T- and N-stage were significantly more advanced for patients with diffuse type tumours. There was a significant difference in the percentage of microscopically irradical resections (2% versus 24%, p < 0.001) and median overall survival (129 versus 17 months, p < 0.001) between patients with intestinal type tumours and those with diffuse type tumours. On multivariate analysis, diffuse type histology was the only factor significantly associated with an R1 resection. In a multivariate Cox regression model, diffuse type histology was a significant adverse prognostic factor for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Striking differences were found between patients with diffuse type tumours and those with intestinal type tumours. These differences call for a differentiated approach in the potentially curative treatment of these two tumour types.