The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) compared with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with early gastric cancer. LADG has been beneficial in terms of pain, recovery, and morbidity when compared with open surgery with equal oncologic outcome. There has been no clinical study on QOL. From July 2003 to November 2005, 164 patients with newly diagnosed cT1N0M0 and cT1N1M0 distal gastric cancer were randomly assigned either to LADG or ODG. All patients were asked to complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-STO22 questionnaires preoperatively and postoperatively on regular follow-up visits. Statistically significant differences were observed with a more favorable outcome noted in the LADG group with respect to intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), total amount of analgesics used (P = 0.019), the size of the wound (P < 0.0001), postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and QOL parameters of global health (P < 0.0001). Most of the scales on patient functioning including physical (P < 0.0005), role (P = 0.0011), emotional (P < 0.0001), social (P < 0.0001), and symptom scales such as fatigue (P < 0.0001), pain (P < 0.0001), appetite loss (P = 0.031), sleep disturbance (P = 0.003), dysphasia (P = 0.0024), gastro-esophageal reflux (P = 0.0127), dietary restriction (P = 0.0004), anxiety (P = 0.0036), dry mouth (P = 0.0007), and body image (P < 0.0001) were also significantly better in the LADG group compared with the ODG group. Comparison of LADG to ODG in patients with early gastric cancer resulted in improved QOL outcomes in the patients followed for up to 3 months in the LADG group.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy is standard for resectable locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in Asia. Based on positive findings for perioperative chemotherapy in European phase III studies, the phase III PRODIGY study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01515748 ) investigated whether neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 (DOS) followed by surgery and adjuvant S-1 could improve outcomes versus standard treatment in Korean patients with resectable LAGC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 20-75 years of age, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and with histologically confirmed primary gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (clinical TNM staging: T2-3N+ or T4Nany) were randomly assigned to D2 surgery followed by adjuvant S-1 (40-60 mg orally twice a day, days 1-28 every 6 weeks for eight cycles; SC group) or neoadjuvant DOS (docetaxel 50 mg/m², oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² intravenously day 1, S-1 40 mg/m² orally twice a day, days 1-14 every 3 weeks for three cycles) before D2 surgery, followed by adjuvant S-1 (CSC group). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) with CSC versus SC. Two sensitivity analyses were performed: intent-to-treat and landmark PFS analysis. RESULTS: Between January 18, 2012, and January 2, 2017, 266 patients were randomly assigned to CSC and 264 to SC at 18 Korean study sites; 238 and 246 patients, respectively, were treated (full analysis set). Follow-up was ongoing in 176 patients at data cutoff (January 21, 2019; median follow-up 38.6 months [interquartile range, 23.5-62.1]). CSC improved PFS versus SC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; stratified log-rank P = .023). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Treatments were well tolerated. Two grade 5 adverse events (febrile neutropenia and dyspnea) occurred during neoadjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: PRODIGY showed that neoadjuvant DOS chemotherapy, as part of perioperative chemotherapy, is effective and tolerable in Korean patients with LAGC.

To compare short-term surgical outcomes including financial cost of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive modality for the treatment of gastric cancer because of its assumed technical superiority over conventional laparoscopy. A prospective, multicenter comparative study was conducted. Patients were matched according to the surgeon, extent of gastric resection, and sex. The primary endpoint was morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. A total of 434 patients were enrolled for treatment with either robotic (n = 223) or laparoscopic (n = 211) gastrectomy for intention-to-treat analysis, and a total of 370 patients (n = 185 per treatment) were compared in per-protocol analysis. Results were similar between both analyses. In per-protocol analysis, both groups showed similar overall complication rates (robotic = 11.9% vs laparoscopic = 10.3%) and major complication rates (robotic = 1.1% vs laparoscopic = 1.1%) with no operative mortality in either group. Patients treated with robotic surgery showed significantly longer operative time (robotic = 221 minutes vs laparoscopic = 178 minutes; P < 0.001) and significantly higher total costs (robotic = US$13,432 vs laparoscopic = US$8090; P < 0.001), compared with those who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. No significant differences between groups were noted in estimated blood loss, rates of open conversion, diet build-up, or length of hospital stay. The use of robotic systems is assumed to provide a technically superior operative environment for minimally invasive surgery. However, our analysis of perioperative surgical outcomes indicated that robotic gastrectomy is not superior to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Clinical trials identification: NCT01309256.

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to investigate the influence of hospital volume, delay of surgery, and both together on the long-term survival of postoperative cancer patients. Using information from the Korea Central Cancer Registry from 2001 through 2005 and the National Health Insurance claim database, we determined survival for 147 682 patients who underwent definitive surgery for any of six cancers. Regardless of cancer site, surgical patients in low- to medium-volume hospitals showed significantly worse survival [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.36–1.86] than those in high-volume hospitals in multivariable analyses. Among the latter, treatment delays > 1 month were not associated with worse survival for stomach, colon, pancreatic, or lung cancer but were for rectal [aHR = 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17–1.40] and breast (aHR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.37–1.84) cancer. For patients in low- to medium-volume hospitals, treatment delay was associated with worse survival for all types of cancer (aHR = 1.78–3.81). Our findings suggest that the effect of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on overall survival of cancer patients should be considered in formulating or revising national health policy.