Outcomes of surgical treatment of non-metastatic gastric cancer in patients aged 70 and older:A systematic review and meta-analysis

The optimal surgical treatment strategy for gastric cancer in older patients needs to be carefully evaluated due to increased vulnerability of older patients. We performed a database search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that included patients ≥70 years with potentially resectable stage I-III gastric cancer. Postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between groups undergoing 1) gastrectomy vs conservative treatment (best supportive care or non-operative treatment), 2) minimally invasive (MIG) vs open gastrectomy (OG), or 3) extended vs limited lymphadenectomy. When possible, results were pooled using risk ratios (RR). Thirty-one studies were included. Six retrospective studies compared overall survival (OS) between gastrectomy (N = 2332) and conservative treatment (N = 246). Longer OS was reported in the gastrectomy group in all studies, but study quality was low and meta-analysis was not feasible. Eighteen cohort studies compared MIG (N = 3626) and OG (N = 5193). MIG was associated with fewer complications (pooled RR 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.54–0.84). OS was not different between the groups. Two RCTs and five cohort studies compared outcomes between extended (N = 709) and limited lymphadenectomy (N = 1323). Complication rates were comparable between the groups. Two cohort studies found longer OS or cancer-specific survival after extended lymphadenectomy. No quality of life (QoL) or functional outcomes were reported. In older patients with gastric cancer, there is low-quality evidence for better OS after gastrectomy vs conservative treatment. Compared to OG, MIG was associated with less postoperative morbidity. The evidence to support extended lymphadenectomy is limited. QoL and functional outcomes should be addressed in future studies

Prognostic value of patient-reported quality of life for survival in oesophagogastric cancer:Analysis from the population-based POCOP study

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence of trials demonstrates that patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in oesophagogastric cancer. However, real-world data are lacking. Moreover, differences in disease stages and tumour-specific symptoms are usually not taken into consideration. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the prognostic value of HRQoL, including tumour-specific scales, on OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the patient reported outcome registry (POCOP). Patients included in POCOP between 2016 and 2018 were stratified for potentially curable (cT1-4aNallM0) or advanced (cT4b or cM1) disease. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the tumour-specific OG25 module. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the impact of HRQoL, sociodemographic and clinical factors (including treatment) on OS. RESULTS: In total, 924 patients were included. Median OS was 38.9 months in potentially curable patients (n = 795) and 10.6 months in patients with advanced disease (n = 129). Global Health Status was independently associated with OS in potentially curable patients (HR 0.89, 99%CI 0.82-0.97), together with several other HRQoL items: appetite loss, dysphagia, eating restrictions, odynophagia, and body image. In advanced disease, the Summary Score was the strongest independent prognostic factor (HR 0.75, 99%CI 0.59-0.94), followed by fatigue, pain, insomnia and role functioning. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, HRQoL was prognostic for OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Several HRQoL domains, including the Summary Score and several OG25 items, could be used to develop or update prognostic models

Surveillance of high-risk early postsurgical patients for real-time detection of complications using wireless monitoring (SHEPHERD study):results of a randomized multicenter stepped wedge cluster trial

Background: Vital signs measurements on the ward are performed intermittently. This could lead to failure to rapidly detect patients with deteriorating vital signs and worsens long-term outcome. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that continuous wireless monitoring of vital signs on the postsurgical ward improves patient outcome. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, patients in the control group received standard monitoring. The intervention group received continuous wireless monitoring of heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature on top of standard care. Automated alerts indicating vital signs deviation from baseline were sent to ward nurses, triggering the calculation of a full early warning score followed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of new disability three months after surgery. Results: The study was terminated early (at 57% inclusion) due to COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are presented. A total of 747 patients were enrolled in this study and eligible for statistical analyses, 517 patients in the control group and 230 patients in the intervention group, the latter only from one hospital. New disability at three months after surgery occurred in 43.7% in the control group and in 39.1% in the intervention group (absolute difference 4.6%). Conclusion: This is the largest randomized controlled trial investigating continuous wireless monitoring in postoperative patients. While patients in the intervention group seemed to experience less (new) disability than patients in the control group, results remain inconclusive with regard to postoperative patient outcome due to premature study termination. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02957825.</p

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the infrarenal aorta: The early learning curve

Background Recently introduced robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) facilitates endoscopic surgical manipulation and thereby reduces the learning curve for (advanced) laparoscopic surgery. We present our learning curve with RALS for aortobifemoral bypass grafting as a treatment for aortoiliac occlusive disease. Methods Between February 2002 and May 2005, 17 patients were treated in our institution with robot-assisted laparoscopic aorto-bifemoral bypasses. Dissection was performed laparoscopically and the robot was used to make the aortic anastomosis. Operative time, clamping time, and anastomosis time, as well as blood loss and hospital stay, were used as parameters to evaluate the results and to compare the first eight (group 1) and the last nine patients (group2). Results Total median operative, clamping, and anastomosis times were 365 min (range: 225–589 min), 86 min (range: 25–205 min), and 41 min (range: 22–110 min), respectively. Total median blood loss was 1,000 ml (range: 100–5,800 ml). Median hospital stay was 4 days (range: 3–57 days). In this series 16/18 anastomoses were completed with the use of the robotic system. Three patients were converted (two in group 1, one in group 2), and one patient died postoperatively (group 1). Median clamping and anastomosis times were significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (111 min [range: 85–205 min] versus 57.5 min [range: 25–130 min], p < 0.01 and 74 min [range: 40–110 min] versus 36 min [range: 22–69 min], p < 0.01, respectively) Total operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay showed no significant difference between groups 1 and 2. Conclusions Robot-assisted aortic anastomosis was shown to have a steep learning curve with considerable reduction of clamping and anastomosis times. However, due to a longer learning curve for laparoscopic dissection of the abdominal aorta, operation times were not significantly shortened. Even with robotic assistance, laparoscopic aortoiliac surgery remains a complex procedure

Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer : international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or>100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.Peer reviewe