Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Large Comprehensive Study Proposing Novel Hypotheses.
Age Factors
Aged
Databases, Factual
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Gastrectomy
/ methods
Hepatitis B
/ complications
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ methods
Lymph Node Excision
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Neoplasm Staging
Nomograms
Propensity Score
Retrospective Studies
Stomach Neoplasms
/ complications
Gastric cancer
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
Long-term outcomes
Nomogram
Open gastrectomy
Propensity score matching
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
06
06
2018
accepted:
09
10
2018
pubmed:
28
11
2018
medline:
22
7
2020
entrez:
28
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) remain obscure, especially for advanced cancer and disease affecting the upper stomach and in older patients. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the long-term efficacy of LG for GC using a large prospective database. Totally, 1877 consecutive patients (1186 receiving LG and 691 OG) operated in 2004-2016 were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 63 months. Association of LG versus OG with disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) overall and in various subgroups were investigated using multivariable Cox regression. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for sensitivity analysis. Before PSM, overall, there was no significant association of LG versus OG with survival after multivariable adjustment; however, in subgroup analyses, LG was associated with superior DSS in patients aged ≥ 70 years and those with upper GC. No significant associations regarding DFS were observed overall or in stratifications. PSM analyses revealed that LG was associated with better DSS also in patients aged ≥ 70 years (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.15-0.72) and in those with upper GC (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.29-0.91), and with better DFS in those with upper GC (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.99). Multivariable analysis showed that age, hepatitis B, performance status, tumor histology, stage, and vascular invasion were significantly associated with post-LG survival. LG-specific nomograms were then constructed with concordance indexes of 0.814 (DSS) and 0.809 (DFS) and excellent calibration. In this large institutional analysis, while LG for GC was associated with DSS and DFS similar to those for OG overall, non-inferior LG-associated survival especially DSS was observed in some subgroups rarely investigated in prospective or randomized settings. There could still be biases even after PSM due to confounders not accounted for in this observational study. However, these findings offer novel hypotheses for further validation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) remain obscure, especially for advanced cancer and disease affecting the upper stomach and in older patients. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the long-term efficacy of LG for GC using a large prospective database.
METHODS
Totally, 1877 consecutive patients (1186 receiving LG and 691 OG) operated in 2004-2016 were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 63 months. Association of LG versus OG with disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) overall and in various subgroups were investigated using multivariable Cox regression. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
Before PSM, overall, there was no significant association of LG versus OG with survival after multivariable adjustment; however, in subgroup analyses, LG was associated with superior DSS in patients aged ≥ 70 years and those with upper GC. No significant associations regarding DFS were observed overall or in stratifications. PSM analyses revealed that LG was associated with better DSS also in patients aged ≥ 70 years (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.15-0.72) and in those with upper GC (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.29-0.91), and with better DFS in those with upper GC (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.99). Multivariable analysis showed that age, hepatitis B, performance status, tumor histology, stage, and vascular invasion were significantly associated with post-LG survival. LG-specific nomograms were then constructed with concordance indexes of 0.814 (DSS) and 0.809 (DFS) and excellent calibration.
CONCLUSIONS
In this large institutional analysis, while LG for GC was associated with DSS and DFS similar to those for OG overall, non-inferior LG-associated survival especially DSS was observed in some subgroups rarely investigated in prospective or randomized settings. There could still be biases even after PSM due to confounders not accounted for in this observational study. However, these findings offer novel hypotheses for further validation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30478532
doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-4008-2
pii: 10.1007/s11605-018-4008-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1349-1361Références
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2001 Apr;11(2):83-7
pubmed: 11330389
Surgery. 2002 Jan;131(1 Suppl):S306-11
pubmed: 11821829
Gastric Cancer. 1999 Dec;2(4):230-234
pubmed: 11957104
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Ann Surg. 2005 Feb;241(2):232-7
pubmed: 15650632
J Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec 15;100(8):693-8
pubmed: 19731245
Br J Surg. 2009 Dec;96(12):1437-42
pubmed: 19918857
Ann Surg. 2010 Mar;251(3):417-20
pubmed: 20160637
Dig Surg. 2010;27(4):291-6
pubmed: 20689290
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3077-9
pubmed: 20882416
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2010 Dec;19(6):355-63
pubmed: 21091070
Gastric Cancer. 2010 Nov;13(4):238-44
pubmed: 21128059
Ann Surg. 2012 Feb;255(2):216-21
pubmed: 22241289
Ann Surg. 2012 Mar;255(3):446-56
pubmed: 22330034
Ann Surg. 2012 Jul;256(1):39-52
pubmed: 22664559
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 1;30(31):3834-40
pubmed: 23008291
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar;43(3):324-7
pubmed: 23275644
Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):3990-7
pubmed: 23877760
Gastric Cancer. 2014 Apr;17(2):206-12
pubmed: 24022130
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Mar 1;32(7):627-33
pubmed: 24470012
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Mar 1;32(7):613-4
pubmed: 24470013
Chin J Cancer Res. 2014 Jun;26(3):226-30
pubmed: 25035645
Surg Endosc. 2015 Apr;29(4):822-43
pubmed: 25106718
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1627-35
pubmed: 25277478
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 May;22(5):1548-54
pubmed: 25395148
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;22(11):3590-6
pubmed: 25631063
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 Mar;13(3):319-25
pubmed: 25736009
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2;372(14):1324-32
pubmed: 25830422
BMC Cancer. 2015 May 05;15:355
pubmed: 25939684
Surg Endosc. 2016 Apr;30(4):1380-7
pubmed: 26123337
World J Surg. 2015 Nov;39(11):2734-41
pubmed: 26170158
Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):28-35
pubmed: 26352529
Br J Surg. 2015 Nov;102(12):1500-5
pubmed: 26398912
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar;17(3):309-18
pubmed: 26822397
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr 20;34(12):1350-7
pubmed: 26903580
Gastric Cancer. 2017 Jan;20(1):1-19
pubmed: 27342689
Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(suppl 5):v38-v49
pubmed: 27664260
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Oct;14(10):1286-1312
pubmed: 27697982
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;35(16):1845-1854
pubmed: 28358653
J Gastrointest Surg. 2017 Nov;21(11):1931-1945
pubmed: 28776158
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):344-350
pubmed: 29099400
Stat Med. 1994 May 30;13(10):1045-62
pubmed: 8073200
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
pubmed: 8668867
Br J Surg. 1997 Mar;84(3):358-61
pubmed: 9117307
Stat Med. 1998 Oct 15;17(19):2265-81
pubmed: 9802183