Abstract
Objective
Minimally invasive surgical techniques for gastric cancer are gaining more interest worldwide. Several Asian studies have proven the benefits of minimally invasive techniques over the open techniques. Nevertheless, implementation of this technique in Western countries is gradual. The aim of this systematic review is to give insight in the differences in outcomes and patient characteristics in Asian countries in comparison to Western countries.
Methodology
An extensive systematic search was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Analysis of the outcomes was performed regarding operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, mortality, lymph node yield, radicality of the resected specimen, and survival. A total of 12 Asian and 8 Western studies were included.
Results
Minimally invasive gastrectomy shows faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications, and similar outcomes regarding mortality in both the Eastern and Western studies. However, patient characteristics such as age and BMI differ between these populations. Comparison of overall outcomes in minimally invasive and open procedures between East and West showed differences in complications, mortality, and number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the Asian population.
Conclusion
Improved outcomes are observed following minimally invasive gastrectomy in comparison to open procedures in both Western and Asian studies. There are differences in patient characteristics between the Western and Asian populations. Overall outcomes seem to be in favor of the Asian population. These differences may fade with centralization of care for gastric cancer patients in the West and increasing surgical experience.
Keywords: Minimally invasive, Gastric cancer, Gastrectomy
Introduction
Based on the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines, curative treatment for gastric cancer consists of surgical resection with adequate lymph node dissection. An adequate resection margin of 2 cm is required with T1 tumors, 3 cm for T2 tumors with an expansive growth pattern, and 5 cm for those with infiltrative growth patterns. Additionally, D1 or D1+ lymphadenectomy is indicated for cT1N0 tumors, and D2 is indicated for cN+ or cT2–T4 tumors [1]. Lymph node yield in gastric cancer surgery is strongly associated with survival and therefore considered a marker for quality of care [2–4]. Since Kitano et al. described the first laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in 1994, the minimally invasive technique has gained increased interest worldwide [5].
Most studies regarding minimally invasive gastrectomy showed good outcomes in countries such as Japan and Korea where there is a relatively high incidence of early gastric cancer because of the screening programs for gastric cancer [6, 7]. There is no screening program for gastric cancer in Western countries and a higher incidence of advanced gastric cancer occurs; thus, the results from Asian studies might not be directly applicable for Western countries. Controversy exists whether postoperative outcomes, radicality, and lymph node yield are influenced by the surgeon’s learning curve, resulting in a slow acceptance and implementation of minimally invasive gastrectomy in the Western world [8].
To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive surgical techniques with open surgical techniques for gastric cancer, several meta-analyses have been conducted in recent years [9, 10].
However, those studies did not differentiate between outcomes in Eastern Asia and the Western world. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of the studies conducted in Asia with the studies conducted in the West.
Materials and methods
Literature search
To identify all relevant publications, a systematic search was performed in the bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE.com, and The Cochrane Library (via Wiley) from inception to 24 January 2017. Search terms included controlled terms from MeSH in PubMed, EMtree in EMBASE.com, as well as free text terms. Free text terms were only used in The Cochrane library. Search terms expressing ‘stomach neoplasms’ were used in combination with search terms constituting ‘open surgery’ and ‘laparoscopy.’ The reference list of included articles was hand searched for relevant publications.
Selection criteria
The search findings were independently evaluated for potential eligibility for this meta-analysis by two authors (J.S. and N.W.). The inclusion criteria were (1) the article had to compare minimally invasive gastrectomy with open gastrectomy; (2) only full text articles were included; case reports were not included; (3) the article had to be in English (no other language was accepted); and (4) only gastrectomy for gastric cancer was included. After this selection, another selection based on type of gastrectomy was made. In this systematic review only articles with total or total and subtotal gastrectomies combined were included.
Study characteristics
The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for retrospective cohort studies and case–control studies was used to assess the quality of the studies. A maximum of nine points could be awarded: four points for selection criteria, two points for comparability, and three points for outcomes. Studies achieving six or more points would be classified as high quality and were used for further analysis. Quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was assessed using the Jadad scale for RCT. A maximum of five points could be awarded: two points for adequate randomization, two points for adequate blinding, and one point if all included patients were accounted for.
Definitions
The following definitions were used for the recorded parameters. Regarding operative data: operation duration was defined in minutes (min) and blood loss in milliliters (ml). Hospital stay: time to first flatus and time to first oral intake were reported in days. Definitions of complications varied between different studies: there was no consensus in reporting type or grade of complication such as the Clavien–Dindo grading system for the classification of surgical complications. Therefore, only the frequency of postoperative complications was reported. In-hospital mortality was defined as mortality during hospital stay or within 30 days postoperatively. Proximal and distal resection margins were reported in centimeters.
Statistical analysis
The systematic review was performed in line with the recommendations from the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [11]. Review Manager version 5.3.5 (2014) was used for data analyses. Continuous variables were assessed using the weighted mean difference. Dichotomous variables were assessed using the odds ratio. To account for clinical heterogeneity, the random effects model based on DerSimonian and Laird’s method was used [12]. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
A sub-analysis was made in Review Manager for studies conducted in Asian countries and studies conducted in Western countries. The analyses, performed using Review Manager, only compared the outcomes in the minimally invasive group with the outcomes in the open group. Therefore, calculation of the weighted means per outcome in the Western group and the Eastern group was conducted. Overall weighed means are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Overall weighted mean outcomes
| West | East | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIG | OG | MIG | OG | |
| Age | 67.54 | 68.74 | 60.70 | 59.44 |
| BMI | 23.97 | 24.38 | 22.35 | 22.69 |
| Blood loss | 149.64 | 397.48 | 83.52 | 213.05 |
| Operative time | 243.02 | 233.87 | 218.81 | 217.80 |
| First diet | 4.41 | 6.35 | 4.79 | 4.85 |
| First flatus | 2.90 | 5.75 | 3.93 | 3.96 |
| Hospital stay | 9.74 | 11.22 | 13.66 | 14.85 |
| Complications (%) | 21.69 | 30.80 | 12.23 | 15.79 |
| Mortality (%) | 3.27 | 5.81 | 0.33 | 0.24 |
| Lymph nodes | 22.96 | 18.88 | 31.29 | 32.35 |
MIG minimally invasive gastrectomy, OG open gastrectomy, BMI body mass index
Results
Study selection
The initial literature search resulted in 2182 hits. After deleting duplicate articles, 1429 articles remained suitable for analysis. After selection on title and abstract, 181 articles remained that met the criteria. Sixty articles did not meet the criteria and were not suitable for analysis after reading the full text. Thus, 121 suitable articles were left. After assessing type of gastrectomy and the quality of the study, using the Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies and the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials, a total of 20 studies were included, 19 retrospective studies and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) [13–32]. Twelve studies were conducted in Asian countries; 8 studies were conducted in Western countries. An overview of the selected articles and patient characteristics is depicted in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2.
Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Jadad score
| References | Representatives of the exposed cohort | Selection of the nonexposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts (max. 2 points) | Assessment of outcome | Follow-up long enough for outcome of interest | Adequacy of follow-up | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cianchi [25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Dulucq [26] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Ecker [27] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Guzman [28] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Pugliese [29] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Ramagem [30] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Siani [31] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Topal [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| An [13] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Du [14] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Jeong [15] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Kawamura [16] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Kim [17] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Kim [18] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Lin [19] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Mochiki [20] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Sakuramoto [21] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Son [22] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Usui [23] | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| References | Randomization mentioned |
Randomization appropriate | Blinding mentioned | Blinding appropriate | All patients accounted for | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cui [24] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
Table 3.
Patient characteristics
| References | Study period | Design | Country | Sample size | Mean age | Sex M/F | BMI | Tumor stage (%) | Lymph node dissection | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIG | OG | MIG | OG | MIG | OG | MIG | OG | I | II | III | IV | |||||
| Cianchi [25] | 06/2008 01/2012 | Retrospective | Italy | 41 | 41 | 24/17 | 25/16 | 28 | 18 | 54 | 0 | D1+ α/β/D2 | ||||
| Dulucq [26] | 04/1995 03/2004 | Retrospective | France | 8 | 11 | 75 ± 8 | 67 ± 14 | 3/5 | 5/6 | D1+ β | ||||||
| Ecker [27] | 01/1998 12/2011 | Retrospective | USA | 331 | 2303 | 68.85 ± 12.11 | 69.08 ± 13.01 | 204/127 | 1342/961 | 14.8 | 37.1 | 47.4 | 0 | |||
| Guzman [28] | 11/1999 01/2009 | Retrospective | USA | 30 | 48 | 70 | 67 | 17/13 | 31/17 | 24.7 | 25.6 | 44.9 | 33.3 | 10.3 | 11.5 | D1/D2 |
| Pugliese [29] | 06/2000 06/2005 | Retrospective | Italy | 48 | 99 | 85.4 | 6.3 | 8.3 | 0 | D1+/D2 | ||||||
| Ramagem [30] | 08/2009 04/2013 | Retrospective | Brazil | 47 | 64 | 57.8 ± 10.53 | 59.7 ± 11.65 | 34/13 | 43/21 | 23.2 ± 4.36 | 23.8 ± 4.04 | 31.5 | 26.1 | 42.4 | 0 | D2 |
| Siani [31] | 01/2003 10/2009 | Matched cohort | Italy | 25 | 25 | 65 ± 8.5 | 66 ± 7.8 | 15/10 | 18/7 | 20 | 20 | 60 | 0 | |||
| Topal [32] | 01/2003 12/2006 | Retrospective | Belgium | 38 | 22 | 66.3 ± 12.3 | 66.9 ± 14.6 | 23/15 | 17/5 | 24.3 ± 2.8 | 23.4 ± 4.1 | 40 | 23.3 | 26.7 | 10 | D2 |
| An [13] | 2003–2007 | Retrospective | Korea | 42 | 162 | 57.0 ± 11.6 | 56.6 ± 12.0 | 23/19 | 108/54 | D1+ β/D2 | ||||||
| Du [14] | 11/2005 05/2009 | Retrospective | China | 82 | 94 | 60.4 ± 18.5 | 57.8 ± 17.2 | 54/28 | 61/33 | 22.3 ± 2.6 | 22.5 ± 2.4 | 5.1 | 38.1 | 56.8 | 0 | D2 |
| Cui [24] | 10/2010 09/2012 | RCT | China | 128 | 142 | 60.1 ± 12.6 | 57.5 ± 11.2 | 88/40 | 98/44 | 23.03 ± 3.61 | 23.66 ± 3.23 | 21.8 | 26.7 | 51.5 | 0 | D2 |
| Jeong [15] | 01/2005 12/2007 | Retrospective | Korea | 261 | 137 | 69.3 | 12.8 | 13.6 | 4.3 | |||||||
| Kawamura [16] | 01/2003 12/2008 | Retrospective | Japan | 42 | 30 | 63.6 ± 10 | 64.9 ± 10.5 | 32/10 | 21/9 | 22.7 ± 3.1 | 22.7 ± 2.9 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | D2 |
| Kim [17] | 01/2004 07/2006 | Retrospective | Korea | 27 | 33 | 57.3 ± 14.2 | 61.6 ± 9.2 | 16/11 | 23/10 | 22.6 ± 3.1 | 22.4 ± 2.1 | D1+ α/β/D2 | ||||
| Kim [18] | 01/2009 04/2010 | Retrospective | Korea | 63 | 127 | 55.9 ± 12.2 | 57.3 ± 11.1 | 43/20 | 81/46 | 22.7 ± 2.5 | 23.0 ± 2.9 | D2 | ||||
| Lin [19] | 01/2005 10/2013 | Retrospective | China | 2041 | 1539 | 61.0 ± 11.1 | 59.8 ± 10.8 | 1523/518 | 1170/369 | 22.3 ± 3.2 | 22.6 ± 3.5 | 26.6 | 19.9 | 53.6 | 0 | D1+ α/β/D2 |
| Mochiki [20] | 04/1998 12/2007 | Retrospective | Japan | 20 | 18 | 66 ± 2.4 | 63 ± 2.2 | 16/4 | 16/2 | 92.1 | 2.6 | 5.3 | 0 | D1+ β | ||
| Sakuramoto [21] | 07/2003 07/2007 | Retrospective | Japan | 30 | 44 | 63.7 ± 9.2 | 67.2 ± 9.9 | 12/18 | 10/34 | 21.9 ± 2.7 | 22.5 ± 3.6 | 54 | 25.7 | 20.3 | 0 | D1+ β/D2 |
| Son [22] | 05/2003 12/2009 | Retrospective | Korea | 39 | 22 | 50.7 ± 14 | 52.4 ± 12.9 | 13/26 | 10/12 | 0 | 32.8 | 67.2 | 0 | D1+/D2 | ||
| Usui [23] | 05/2011 08/2004 | Retrospective | Japan | 20 | 19 | 66.0 ± 10.4 | 66.2 ± 10.2 | 13/7 | 14/5 | 21.3 ± 3.1 | 22.1 ± 2.4 | 92.3 | 7.7 | 0 | 0 | |
Operative results
Operation duration was shorter in the open group in both the Western studies and the Asian studies. The overall results of both subgroups showed a significant difference. Overall weighted mean difference was 30.84 min (95% CI, 8.12–64.81).
Blood loss was significantly less in the minimally invasive group. Overall weighted mean difference was −173.09 ml (95% CI, −216.74 to −129.43). Forest plots of operation duration and blood loss are depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Operation duration and blood loss
Postoperative recovery
Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group. Overall weighted mean difference was −3.46 days (95% CI, −4.49 to −1.63).
The time to first flatus showed a significant difference in favor of the minimally invasive group. In the analysis of only the Asian studies this was not significantly different; the overall weighted mean difference was −1.08 days (95% CI, −7.97 to −0.19).
Time to first diet showed a significant difference in favor of the minimally invasive group. Overall weighted mean difference was −1.85 days (95% CI, −3.61 to −0.10).
Forest plots of postoperative recovery are depicted in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to first diet
Morbidity and mortality
Fewer complications occurred in the minimally invasive group in comparison to the open group. Analysis of only the Asian studies showed no significant difference between the two groups. However, overall the analysis showed a significant difference with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58–0.92).
No difference in mortality was seen between the two groups, with an odds ratio of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.49–1.23). Forest plots of morbidity and mortality are depicted in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Postoperative complications and mortality
Oncological outcomes
Significantly more lymph nodes were resected in the minimally invasive group in comparison to the open group, with an overall weighted mean difference of −1.41 lymph nodes (95% CI, −2.64 to −0.17). A forest plot of lymph node yield is depicted in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Lymph node yield
Four Asian studies reported radicality; all reported 100% R0 resections [13–15, 22, 24]. Seven Western studies reported radicality [25–30, 32]. Only one had all R0 resections, all other studies also reported R1 resections; however there were no differences between the open or minimally invasive groups.
Seven Asian studies reported disease-free and/or overall survival [13–15, 19–22]. Three studies conducted in Western countries reported disease-free and/or overall survival [26, 29, 31].
Follow-up duration differed between studies, making it difficult to compare these results. Only one study, that by Lin et al., reported a significant difference in survival between the two groups. In the overall 3-year disease free survival, a better survival rate was reported for the minimally invasive group. After comparing survival rates according to tumor stage, this difference disappeared.
Discussion
In conclusion, improved outcomes are observed following minimally invasive gastrectomy in comparison to open procedures in both Western and Asian studies.
There are differences in patient characteristics between the Western and Asian populations. Patient characteristics such as age and body mass index (BMI) are higher in the Western population, which may be explained by the fact that the incidence of gastric cancer is higher in Eastern Asia. Several Asian countries have a screening program for gastric cancer. In Japan, population-based screening is recommended for individuals older than 50 years and in Korea for individuals aged 40–75 years, resulting in a lower age of onset compared to the West [7]. A higher BMI in the Western patient group could correspond to an overall higher BMI in the Western population. In the Netherlands more than 50% of the adult population has a BMI of 25 or higher, and approximately 36% had a BMI between 25 and 30 [33]. Mean BMI in gastric cancer patients in 2014 was 25 [34]. With more-advanced disease in gastric cancer in the West, an average normal BMI might reflect a cachectic overweight patient.
Both Western and Asian studies show better short-term outcomes in favor of minimally invasive surgical techniques, with faster postoperative recovery with a significant shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus, and a shorter time to first diet. It should be noted that international implementation of enhanced recovery protocols (ERAS) might influence these results. Perioperative results show significantly less blood loss in the minimally invasive group; however, operation duration was longer. Additionally, fewer postoperative complications and no differences in mortality were reported. All these short-term advantages can be attributed to the less invasive nature of the minimally invasive approach. These outcomes are in accordance with other meta-analyses comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomies [9, 10].
When comparing East with West, more blood loss and longer operation duration are seen in the Western studies, which may be attributed to the lower overall incidence of gastric cancer in Western countries. Blood loss and operation duration might not have clinical value, but these outcomes could indicate Western surgeons have less experience in the treatment of gastric cancer. Only one study reported on surgeon experience; one experienced surgeon performed all minimally invasive procedures [32]. It should be noted that the incidence of performing minimally invasive gastrectomy was low in the Western studies. In all but one Western study fewer than 10 minimally invasive procedures were performed annually. With a learning curve reported at 20–40 procedures, this finding indicates progression through the learning curve is slow and might affect the presented results [35].
With regard to complications and mortality, these outcomes seem to show a trend in favor of the Asian studies. There are two large studies reporting the outcomes of mortality rate [19, 27]. Analyses with and without these studies did not show an effect on the outcomes presented here. An overall significant difference in lymph node yield in the minimally invasive group was seen, with a mean difference of 1.41 lymph nodes. No effects on clinical outcome are to be expected from this result. More importantly, all studies reported an average of at least 19 resected lymph nodes, which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, which advocates removal of at least 15 lymph nodes [1]. The overall differences in lymph node yield show a trend toward a higher number of resected lymph nodes in the Eastern studies, which can be attributed to the greater experience of Asian surgeons with the surgical treatment of gastric cancer. Additionally, pathological examination of lymph nodes can be different, with lymph node dissection taking place separately or en bloc. Furthermore, examination by a specialized upper gastrointestinal pathologist could influence the outcome. Unfortunately, no study reported if lymph node yield was done separately or en bloc.
The difference in survival reported by Lin et al. could be explained by the heterogeneity of both groups, with larger tumors and more advanced disease in the open group [19].
Overall outcomes seem to be in favor of the Asian population. Future research should aim to further assess differences in population, patient assessment, surgical techniques, and experience, to ensure optimal treatment for all gastric cancer patients. In the West care for gastric cancer patients is more and more centralized to specialized treatment units, ensuring optimal care, not only by experienced surgeons, but by an experienced treatment team, ranging from preoperative workup to perioperative care and follow-up. The implementation of minimally invasive techniques for gastric cancer is progressing gradually in Western countries. Several randomized controlled trials are being conducted in the West comparing minimally invasive with open gastrectomy for gastric cancer [36, 37]. These developments may aid in diminishing the differences between the East and West.
Conclusion
Improved outcomes are observed in both Western and Asian studies following minimally invasive gastrectomy in comparison to open procedures. There are differences in patient characteristics between the Western and Asian population. Overall outcomes, such as lymph node yield, complications, and mortality, seem to be in favor of the Asian population. These differences may fade with centralization of care for gastric cancer patients in the West and increasing surgical experience.
Appendix
| Recent queries | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search | Add to builder | Query | Items found | Time |
| #5 | Add | Search (#4 NOT (“addresses”[Publication Type] OR “biography”[Publication Type] OR “Case Reports” [Publication Type] OR “comment”[Publication Type] OR “directory”[Publication Type] OR “editorial”[Publication Type] OR “festschrift”[Publication Type] OR “interview”[Publication Type] OR “lectures”[Publication Type] OR “legal cases”[Publication Type] OR “legislation”[Publication Type] OR “letter”[Publication Type] OR “news”[Publication Type] OR “newspaper article”[Publication Type] OR “patient education handout”[Publication Type] OR “popular works”[Publication Type] OR “congresses”[Publication Type] OR “consensus development conference”[Publication Type] OR “consensus development conference, nih”[Publication Type] OR “practice guideline”[Publication Type]) NOT (animals[mh] NOT humans[mh) | 902 | 05:45:48 |
| #4 | Add | Search (#1 AND #2 AND #3) | 1040 | 05:45:07 |
| #3 | Add | Search (“open Surgery”[tiab] OR “open procedure”[tiab] OR “open operation”[tiab] OR laparotomy[tiab] OR laparotomies[tiab] OR open gastrectomy[tiab] OR “open resection”[tiab] OR “open gastric resection”[tiab] OR “open Surgery”[ot] OR “open procedure”[ot] OR “open operation”[ot] OR laparotomy[ot] OR laparotomies[ot] OR “open gastrectomy”[ot] OR “open resection”[ot] OR “open gastric resection”[ot) | 59,229 | 05:44:38 |
| #2 | Add | Search (“Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive”[Mesh:NoExp] OR “Laparoscopy”[Mesh] OR “Video-Assisted Surgery”[Mesh] OR “gastrectomy”[MeSH] OR Laparoscopy[tiab] OR Laparoscopies[tiab] OR laparoscopic[tiab] OR videolaparoscop*[tiab] OR abdominoscop*[tiab] OR “Video-Assisted”[tiab] OR “Minimal Surgical”[tiab] OR “Minimally Invasive”[tiab] OR “Minimal Invasive”[tiab] OR “Minimal Access Surgical Procedures”[tiab] OR Laparoscopy[ot] OR Laparoscopies[ot] OR laparoscopic[ot] OR videolaparoscop*[ot] OR abdominoscop*[ot] OR “Video-Assisted”[ot] OR “Minimal Surgical”[ot] OR “Minimally Invasive”[ot] OR “Minimally Invasive”[ot] OR “Minimal Access Surgical Procedures”[ot) | 189,153 | 05:44:07 |
| #1 | Add | Search (“Stomach Neoplasms”[Mesh] OR Stomach Neoplasm*[tiab] OR Gastric Neoplasm*[tiab] OR Stomach Cancer*[tiab] OR Gastric Cancer*[tiab] OR Stomach carcinoma*[tiab] OR gastric carcinoma*[tiab] OR stomach tumor*[tiab] OR stomach tumour*[tiab] OR gastric tumor*[tiab] OR gastric tumour*[tiab] OR stomach neoplasia*[tiab] OR cardia carcinoma*[tiab] OR linitis plastica[tiab] OR Stomach Neoplasm*[ot] OR Gastric Neoplasm*[ot] OR Stomach Cancer*[ot] OR Gastric Cancer*[ot] OR Stomach carcinoma*[ot] OR gastric carcinoma*[ot] OR stomach tumor*[ot] OR stomach tumour*[ot] OR gastric tumor*[ot] OR gastric tumour*[ot] OR stomach neoplasia*[ot] OR cardia carcinoma*[ot] OR linitis plastica[ot) | 99,259 | 05:43:31 |
Compliance with ethical standards
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Association Japanese Gastric Cancer. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (version 3) Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–123. doi: 10.1007/s10120-011-0042-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cutsem EV, Dicato M, Geva R, Arber N, Bang Y, Benson A, et al. The diagnosis and management of gastric cancer: expert discussion and recommendations from the 12th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona 2010. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):v1–v9. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dikken JL, Stiekema J, van de Velde CJ, Verheij M, Cats A, Wouters MW, et al. Quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(2):381–398. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2574-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kattan MW, Karpeh MS, Mazumdar M, Brennan MF. Postoperative nomogram for disease-specific survival after an R0 resection for gastric carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(19):3647–3650. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4(2):146–148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hamashima C KY, Choi KS. Comparison of guidelines and management for gastric cancer screening between Korea and Japan. ISPOR 20th Annual International Meeting; Philadelphia 2015.
- 8.Antonakis PT, Ashrafian H, Isla AM. Laparoscopic gastric surgery for cancer: where do we stand? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(39):14280–14291. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i39.14280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chen XZ, Wen L, Rui YY, Liu CX, Zhao QC, Zhou ZG, et al. Long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltim) 2015;94(4):e454. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Jansma EP, van der Peet DL. Minimally invasive versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes and completeness of resection: surgical techniques in gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2016;40(1):148–157. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3223-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Liberati AAD, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Loannidis JPA. The PRISM statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1–e34. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.An JY, Heo GU, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Assessment of open versus laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy in lymph node-positive early gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(1):77–81. doi: 10.1002/jso.21554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Du J, Zheng J, Li Y, Li J, Ji G, Dong G, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with extended lymph node resection for advanced gastric cancer: reports of 82 cases. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57(104):1589–1594. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jeong SH, Lee YJ, Park ST, Choi SK, Hong SC, Jung EJ, et al. Risk of recurrence after laparoscopy-assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer performed by a single surgeon. Surg Endos Other Interv Tech. 2011;25(3):872–878. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1286-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kawamura H, Yokota R, Homma S, Kondo Y. Comparison of respiratory function recovery in the early phase after laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy. Sur Endos Other Interv Tech. 2010;24(11):2739–2742. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1037-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kim SG, Lee YJ, Ha WS, Jung EJ, Ju YT, Jeong CY, et al. LATG with extracorporeal esophagojejunostomy: is this minimal invasive surgery for gastric cancer? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A. 2008;18(4):572–578. doi: 10.1089/lap.2007.0106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kim MG, Kim BS, Kim TH, Kim KC, Yook JH, Kim BS. The effects of laparoscopic assisted total gastrectomy on surgical outcomes in the treatment of gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;80(4):245–250. doi: 10.4174/jkss.2011.80.4.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lin JX, Huang CM, Zheng CH, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, et al. Surgical outcomes of 2041 consecutive laparoscopic gastrectomy procedures for gastric cancer: a large-scale case control study. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0114948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mochiki E, Toyomasu Y, Ogata K, Andoh H, Ohno T, Aihara R, et al. Laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for upper and middle gastric cancer. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2008; 22(9): [1997–2002 pp.]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/296/CN-00666296/frame.html. Accessed 19 July 2017. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 21.Sakuramoto S, Kikuchi S, Futawatari N, Katada N, Moriya H, Hirai K, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted pancreas- and spleen-preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer as compared with open total gastrectomy. Surgical endoscopy [Internet]. 2009; 23(11): [2416–2423 pp.]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/533/CN-00765533/frame.html. Accessed 19 July 2017. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 22.Son T, Hyung WJ, Lee JH, Kim YM, Noh SH. Minimally invasive surgery for serosa-positive gastric cancer (pT4a) in patients with preoperative diagnosis of cancer without serosal invasion. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2014;28(3):866–874. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3236-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Usui S, Yoshida T, Ito K, Hiranuma S, Kudo SE, Iwai T. Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: comparison with conventional open total gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2005;15(6):309–314. doi: 10.1097/01.sle.0000191589.84485.4a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Cui M, Li Z, Xing J, Yao Z, Liu M, Chen L, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing D2 dissection in laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Med Oncol (Northwood) 2015;32(10):241. doi: 10.1007/s12032-015-0680-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cianchi F, Qirici E, Trallori G, Macrì G, Indennitate G, Ortolani M, et al. Totally laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a matched cohort study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2013;23(2):117–122. doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Solinas L, Perissat J, Mahajna A. Laparoscopic and open gastric resections for malignant lesions: a prospective comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(7):933–938. doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-2172-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ecker BL, Datta J, McMillan MT, Poe SL, Drebin JA, Fraker DL, et al. Minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States: utilization and short-term oncologic outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(6):616–621. doi: 10.1002/jso.24052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Guzman EA, Pigazzi A, Lee B, Soriano PA, Nelson RA, Benjamin Paz I, et al. Totally laparoscopic gastric resection with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(8):2218–2223. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0508-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F, Scandroglio I, Ferrari GC, Di Lernia S, et al. Total and subtotal laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2007;21(1):21–27. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0409-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ramagem CA, Linhares M, Lacerda CF, Bertulucci PA, Wonrath D, de Oliveira AT. Comparison of laparoscopic total gastrectomy and laparotomic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Braz Arch Dig Surg. 2015;28(1):65–69. doi: 10.1590/S0102-67202015000100017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Siani LM, Ferranti F, De Carlo A, Quintiliani A. Completely laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy in stage I-III/C gastric cancer: safety, efficacy and 5-year oncologic outcome. Minerva Chirurg. 2012;67(4):319–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Topal B, Leys E, Ectors N, Aerts R, Penninckx F. Determinants of complications and adequacy of surgical resection in laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn [Internet]. 2008; 22(4): 980–984 pp. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/970/CN-00892970/frame.html. Accessed 19 July 2017. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 33.CBS. https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overgewicht/cijfers-context/huidige-situatie-node-overgewicht-volwassenen-naar-leeftijd. Accessed 19 July 2017.
- 34.DICA. Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit jaarrapportage 2015 https://dica.nl/jaarrapportage-2015/duca2016.
- 35.Kim HG, Park JH, Jeong SH, Lee YJ, Ha WS, Choi SK, et al. Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after learning curve completion: comparison with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. J Gastric Cancer. 2013;13(1):26–33. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2013.13.1.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Haverkamp L, Brenkman HJ, Seesing MF, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Luyer MD, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial) BMC Cancer. 2015;15:556. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1551-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Gisbertz SS, Hartemink KJ, Alonso Poza A, et al. Surgical techniques, open versus minimally invasive gastrectomy after chemotherapy (STOMACH trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:123. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0638-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]