Objective: To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with GC who received RDG or LDG. Summary Background Data: Despite the increasing use of RDG in patients with GC, its safety and efficacy compared to those of LDG have not been elucidated in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Three hundred patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ between September 2017 and January 2020 were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial at a high-volume hospital in China. The short-term outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: The modified intention-to-treat analysis included data from 283 patients (RDG group: n = 141) and (LDG group: n = 142). Patients in the RDG group exhibited faster postoperative recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and reduced postoperative morbidity (9.2% vs 17.6%, respectively, P = 0.039). Higher extraperigastric lymph nodes (LNs) were retrieved in the RDG group (17.6 ± 5.8 vs 15.8 ± 6.6, P = 0.018) with lower noncompliance rate (7.7% vs 16.9%, respectively, P = 0.006). Additionally, patients in the RDG group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier [median (interquartile range) postoperative days: 28 (24–32) vs 32 (26–42), P = 0.003]. Although total hospital costs were higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group, the direct cost was lower for RDG than for LDG (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: RDG is associated with a lower morbidity rate, faster recovery, milder inflammatory responses, and improved lymphadenectomy. Additionally, faster postoperative recovery in the RDG group enables early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Our results provide evidence for the application of RDG in patients with GC.
Background Serum prealbumin (PALB) can predict the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (GC). However, the prognostic value of combination of C-reactive protein and PALB (CRP/PALB) remains unclear. Methods A total of 419 gastric cancer patients included in a clinical trial (NCT02327481) were analyzed. The present study is a substudy of the trial. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, and by calculating the areas under the curve (AUC) and the C-index, the discriminative ability of each inflammatory index was compared, including CRP/ PALB, C-reactive protein/albumin, Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), modified GPS, systemic immune-inflammation index, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-lymphocyte ratio. Results Ultimately, 401 patients were included in this study. The optimal cutoff value of CRP/PALB was 17.7. According to this cutoff point, the entire sample was divided into a CRP/PALB < 17.7 (LCP) group and a CRP/PALB ≥ 17.7 (HCP) group, comprising 245 and 156 patients, respectively. There were 54 and 22 patients experienced recurrence in the HCP and LCP group, respectively, p < 0.001. Compared with traditional inflammatory indices, CRP/PALB had the highest AUC (0.707) and C-index (0.716), all p < 0.05. The post-recurrence survival (PRS) of patients in the HCP group was significantly shorter than that in the LCP group (p = 0.010), especially for pathological stage III patients (p = 0.015) or patients with distant (p = 0.018) or local (p = 0.023) recurrences. Conclusions The predictive value of preoperative CRP/PALB for the recurrence of GC is significantly better than traditional inflammatory indices. HCP significantly reduces the PRS, especially for pathological stage III patients or patients with distant or local recurrences.Keywords Gastric cancer · Inflammatory index · CRP/prealbumin · Recurrence · Post-recurrence survival Jun Lu and Bin-bin Xu contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1012 0-018-0892-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.