Surgical quality and prospective quality control of the D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the multicenter randomized LOGICA-trial

Background: Quality of gastric cancer surgery is crucial for favorable prognosis. Generally, prospective trials lack quality control measures. This study assessed surgical quality and a novel D2-lymphadenectomy photo-scoring in the LOGICA-trial. Methods: The multicenter LOGICA-trial randomized laparoscopic versus open total/distal D2-gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer (cT1-4aN0-3M0) in 10 Dutch hospitals. During the trial, two reviewers prospectively analyzed intraoperative photographs of dissected nodal stations for quality control, and provided centers weekly feedback on their D2-lymphadenectomy, as continuous quality-enhancing incentive. After the trial, these photographs were reanalyzed to develop a photo-scoring for future trials, rating the D2-lymphadenectomy dissection quality (optimal-good-suboptimal-unevaluable). Interobserver variability was calculated (weighted kappa). Regression analyses related the photo-scoring to nodal yield, recurrence and 5-years survival. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 212 patients underwent total/distal D2-gastrectomy (n = 122/n = 90), and 158 (75%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. R0-resection rate was 95%. Rate of ≥15 retrieved lymph nodes was 95%. Moderate agreement was obtained in stations 8 + 9 (κ = 0.522), 11p/11d (κ = 0.446) and 12a (κ = 0.441). Consensus was reached for discordant cases (30%). Stations 8 + 9, 11p/11d and 12a were rated ‘optimal’ in 76%, 63% and 68%. Laparoscopic photographs could be rated better than open (2% versus 12% ‘unevaluable’; 73% versus 50% ‘optimal’; p = 0.042). The photo-scoring did not show associations with nodal yield (p = 0.214), recurrence (p = 0.406) and survival (p = 0.988). Conclusions: High radicality and nodal yield demonstrated good quality of D2-gastrectomy. The prospective quality control probably contributed to this. The photo-scoring did not show good performance, but can be refined. Laparoscopic D2-gastrectomy was better suited for standardized surgical photo-evaluation than open surgery.</p

Body Composition Is a Predictor for Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer:a Prospective Side Study of the LOGICA Trial

PURPOSE: There is a lack of prospective studies evaluating the effects of body composition on postoperative complications after gastrectomy in a Western population with predominantly advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: This is a prospective side study of the LOGICA trial, a multicenter randomized trial on laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Trial patients who received preoperative chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy with an available preoperative restaging abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan were included. The CT scan was used to calculate the mass (M) and radiation attenuation (RA) of skeletal muscle (SM), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT). These variables were expressed as Z-scores, depicting how many standard deviations each patient’s CT value differs from the sex-specific study sample mean. Primary outcome was the association of each Z-score with the occurrence of a major postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3b). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, a total of 112 patients were included. A major postoperative complication occurred in 9 patients (8%). A high SM-M Z-score was associated with a lower risk of major postoperative complications (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28–0.78, p = 0.004). Furthermore, high VAT-RA Z-scores and SAT-RA Z-scores were associated with a higher risk of major postoperative complications (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.52–5.23, p = 0.001 and RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.14–3.34, p = 0.015, respectively). VAT-M, SAT-M, and SM-RA Z-scores showed no significant associations. CONCLUSION: Preoperative low skeletal muscle mass and high visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue radiation attenuation (indicating fat depleted of triglycerides) were associated with a higher risk of developing a major postoperative complication in patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11605-022-05321-0

Pain and Opioid Consumption After Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer:A Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (LOGICA-Trial)

Background:Laparoscopic gastrectomy could reduce pain and opioid consumption, compared to open gastrectomy. However, it is difficult to judge the clinical relevance of this reduction, since these outcomes are reported in few randomized trials and in limited detail. Methods: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial compared laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). Postoperative pain was analyzed by opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME, mg/day) at postoperative day (POD) 1–5, WHO analgesic steps, and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS, 0–10) at POD 1–10 and discharge. Regression and mixed model analyses were performed, with and without correction for epidural analgesia. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 115 patients in the laparoscopic group and 110 in the open group underwent surgery. Some 16 patients (14%) in the laparoscopic group and 73 patients (66%) in the open group received epidural analgesia. At POD 1–3, mean opioid consumption was 131, 118, and 53 mg OME lower in the laparoscopic group, compared to the open group, respectively (all p &lt; 0.001). After correcting for epidural analgesia, these differences remained significant at POD 1–2 (47 mg OME, p = 0.002 and 69 mg OME, p &lt; 0.001, respectively). At discharge, 27% of patients in the laparoscopic group and 43% patients in the open group used oral opioids (p = 0.006). Mean highest daily pain scores were between 2 and 4 at all PODs, &lt; 2 at discharge, and did not relevantly differ between treatment arms. Conclusion: In this multicenter randomized trial, postoperative pain was comparable between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. After laparoscopic gastrectomy, this was generally achieved without epidural analgesia and with fewer opioids. Trial Registration: NCT02248519.</p

Evolution in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Through National Clinical Practice

Objective: To examine the influence of the LOGICA RCT (randomized controlled trial) upon the practice and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy within the Netherlands. Background: Following RCTs the dissemination of complex interventions has been poorly studied. The LOGICA RCT included 10 Dutch centers and compared laparoscopic to open gastrectomy. Methods: Data were obtained from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) on all gastrectomies performed in the Netherlands (2012-2021), and the LOGICA RCT from 2015 to 2018. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy upon clinical outcomes before, during, and after the LOGICA RCT. Results: Two hundred eleven patients from the LOGICA RCT (105 open vs 106 laparoscopic) and 4131 patients from the DUCA data set (1884 open vs 2247 laparoscopic) were included. In 2012, laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 6% of patients, increasing to 82% in 2021. No significant effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on postoperative clinical outcomes was observed within the LOGICA RCT. Nationally within DUCA, a shift toward a beneficial effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy upon complications was observed, reaching a significant reduction in overall [adjusted odds ratio (aOR):0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82], severe (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90) and cardiac complications (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89) after the LOGICA trial. Conclusions: The wider benefits of the LOGICA trial included the safe dissemination of laparoscopic gastrectomy across the Netherlands. The robust surgical quality assurance program in the design of the LOGICA RCT was crucial to facilitate the national dissemination of the technique following the trial and reducing potential patient harm during surgeons learning curve.</p

Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be 8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, 7353 (US$7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, 6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and 5893 (US$5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were 26084 (US $25965) in the laparoscopic group and 25332 (US$25216) in the open group (difference, 752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer (LOGICA): A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: The oncological efficacy and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy are under debate for the Western population with predominantly advanced gastric cancer undergoing multimodality treatment. METHODS: In 10 experienced upper GI centers in the Netherlands, patients with resectable (cT1-4aN0-3bM0) gastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. No masking was performed. The primary outcome was hospital stay. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. It was hypothesized that laparoscopic gastrectomy leads to shorter hospital stay, less postoperative complications, and equal oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 227 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 115) or open gastrectomy (n = 112). Preoperative chemotherapy was administered to 77 patients (67%) in the laparoscopic group and 87 patients (78%) in the open group. Median hospital stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 5-9) in both groups (P = .34). Median blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group (150 v 300 mL, P < .001), whereas mean operating time was longer (216 v 182 minutes, P < .001). Both groups did not differ regarding postoperative complications (44% v 42%, P = .91), in-hospital mortality (4% v 7%, P = .40), 30-day readmission rate (9.6% v 9.1%, P = 1.00), R0 resection rate (95% v 95%, P = 1.00), median lymph node yield (29 v 29 nodes, P = .49), 1-year overall survival (76% v 78%, P = .74), and global health-related quality of life up to 1 year postoperatively (mean differences between + 1.5 and + 3.6 on a 1-100 scale; 95% CIs include zero). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gastrectomy did not lead to a shorter hospital stay in this Western multicenter randomized trial of patients with predominantly advanced gastric cancer. Postoperative complications and oncological efficacy did not differ between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field