Postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications adversely affect OS and RFS. Meticulous surgery is needed to decrease the complication rate and improve the long-term outcome of patients following curative gastrectomy.

Sarcopenia is related to poor survival in gastric cancer patients and appears to be a significant negative prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative resection.

No abstract

BackgroundThe incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing worldwide. We investigated the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with Siewert type II and III AEGs and clarified the optimal intra-abdominal lymph node dissection in these patients.MethodsThis study included 132 patients with AEG who underwent curative resection at Shizuoka Cancer Center from September 2002 to December 2012. We used the index of estimated benefit from lymph node dissection (IEBLD) to assess the efficacy of lymph node dissection of each station. The clinicopathological characteristics and IEBLDs of each station were compared between patients with Siewert type II and III AEGs.ResultsWe analyzed 92 patients with Siewert type II AEG and 40 patients with Siewert type III AEG. The incidence of lymph node metastasis was high in both groups (64.1 % in type II AEG and 75.0 % in type III AEG). The 5-year survival rates were similar for the patients with Siewert type II and III AEGs, at 54.0 and 53.4 %, respectively. The IEBLDs of stations located near the esophagogastric junction were generally high in both groups, while the IEBLDs of lower perigastric lymph nodes were higher in Siewert type III than in Siewert type II AEG cases.ConclusionsThe IEBLDs were similar between Siewert type II and III AEGs at all stations except for lower perigastric lymph nodes. Total gastrectomy should be selected as a standard treatment for Siewert type III AEG, whereas in Siewert type II AEG, preservation of the distal part of the stomach may be an acceptable procedure.

The oSAS was not found to be a predictive factor for severe complications following gastrectomy in Japanese patients. A slightly modified SAS (i.e. the mSAS) is considered to be a useful predictor for the development of severe complications in elective surgery.

Although a pCR was a relatively rare event, a high pCR rate would be helpful to select the regimen and courses of NAC, especially when the pathological response rates are similar.

Background The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol integrates a number of perioperative interventions and techniques, aiming at decreasing the morbidity rate and the length of postoperative hospital stay after surgery. Although it has become a standard perioperative management for colorectal surgery, the feasibility of the ERAS protocol for gastric surgery remains unclear. Methods This single-center, prospective phase II study included patients with gastric cancer undergoing curative gastrectomy. The primary end point was the incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications. The secondary end points were the incidence of anastomotic leakage, the incidence of pneumonia, the proportion of patients starting oral feeding at postoperative day 2, the completion rate of the ERAS protocol, the length of postoperative hospital stay, the readmission rate within 30 days after discharge, and the mortality rate. Results From September 2013 to September 2014, 121 eligible patients were enrolled in this study. The incidence of postoperative complications was 10.7 % (90 % confidence interval, 6.47-16.54 %). Anastomotic leakage and pneumonia was observed in one and zero patients, respectively. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 days, and the completion rate of the ERAS protocol was 85.1 %. The readmission rate and the mortality rate were 0 %. Conclusions The ERAS protocol can be safely used in patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery. The superiority of the ERAS protocol over non-ERAS perioperative management should be clarified.

This early phase II study suggested that RADG might be a safe and feasible procedure for stage IA gastric cancer, providing experienced surgeons perform the surgery. This conclusion should be clarified in subsequent late phase II studies with a larger sample size.