Colorectal cancer remains the third most prevalent cancer worldwide, exceeding 1.9 million new cases annually. Surgery continues to be the gold standard treatment option. Unfortunately, colorectal cancer surgery carries significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. Moreover, most rectal cancer patients and some patients with locally advanced colon cancer require preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. It improves long-term outcomes but impairs patients’ physical fitness and thus further increases surgical risk. Recently, prehabilitation has gained interest as a novel strategy to reduce treatment-related morbidity for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. However, the concept is still in its infancy, and the role of prehabilitation remains controversial. In this comprehensive review, we sum up present evidence on prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery. Available studies are very heterogenous in interventions and investigated outcomes. Nonetheless, all trials show at least some positive effects of prehabilitation on patients’ physical, nutritional, or psychological status or even reduced postoperative morbidity. Unfortunately, the optimal prehabilitation program remains undetermined; therefore, this concept cannot be widely implemented. Future studies investigating optimal prehabilitation regimens for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer are necessary.

Esophagogastric cancer is among the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy is the only potentially curative treatment option. Although esophagogastric resections remain associated with major surgical trauma and significant postoperative morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve clinical outcomes by optimizing physical and psychological status before major surgery through exercise and nutritional and psychological interventions. Current prehabilitation programs may be unimodal, including only one intervention, or multimodal, combining the benefits of different types of interventions. However, it still is an investigational treatment option mostly limited to clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the current evidence for the role of prehabilitation in modern esophagogastric cancer surgery. The available studies are very heterogeneous in design, type of interventions, and measured outcomes. Yet, all of them confirm at least some positive effects of prehabilitation in terms of improved physical performance, nutritional status, quality of life, or even reduced postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal interventions for prehabilitation remain unclear; thus, they cannot be standardized and widely adopted. Future studies on multimodal prehabilitation are necessary to develop optimal programs for patients with esophagogastric cancer.

Background : Although the general postoperative mortality rate after gastrectomy is decreasing worldwide, it still varies in individual centers and regions of the world. The objective of our work was to analyze the postoperative mortality rate at the Institute of Oncology, Vilnius University over a period of 10 years. Methods : All patients who underwent total and subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 2003–2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Comprehensive evaluation of postoperative mortality was done according to the age, sex, comor-bidities, BMI, tumor stage, extent or resection and lymphadenectomy, splenectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and stage of disease. The causes of death were also analyzed. Results : The analysis of postoperative mortality for patients treated for gastric cancer in the period of 2003–2012 revealed that 1676 surgeries were performed with 54 lethal outcomes (3.22%). Complication rate was 20.58%. 1011 subtotal gastrectomies were performed with 24 lethal cases (2.37%). 30 patients died after 665 total gastrectomies (4.51%). The vast majority of deceased patients were older than 60 years (92.6%) and had advanced gastric cancer - stage III and IV (70.4%). 33 of 54 patients died from non-surgical complications (61.1%). Surgical complications accounted for 35.2% of dead patients, which totals 19 of 54 patients. Progression of cancer and cachexia caused the deaths of 3.7% of patients. Conclusion : Elderly age, comorbidities, advanced stage of tumor and disease, and more radical surgery are related with higher postoperative mortality. The most common cause of death was pulmonary arterial thromboembolism. Therefore, risk assessment of venous thrombosis and thromboembolism prophylaxis should be an important component of gastric cancer surgical treatment.

Endoscopic resection is widely accepted treatment option for early gastric cancer if tumors meet the standard or expanded indications. However, the safety of expanded criteria is still under investigation. Furthermore, discussion, if any additional treatment is necessary for patients who underwent endoscopic resection but exceeded expanded criteria, is rising. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of extended indications for endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer in a Western cohort. Also, we aimed to analyze the lymph node metastasis rate in tumors which exceeds the extended criteria. Two hundred eighteen patients who underwent surgery for early gastric cancer at National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania between 2005 and 2015 were identified from a prospective database. Lymph node status was examined in 197 patients who met or exceeded extended indications for endoscopic resection. Lymph node metastasis was detected in 1.7% of cancers who met extended indications and in 30.2% of cancers who exceeded expanded indications. Lymphovascular invasion and deeper tumor invasion is associated with lymph node metastasis in cancers exceeding expanded indications. Expanded criteria for endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer in Western settings is not entirely safe because these tumors carry the risk of lymph node metastasis.

The proportion of early gastric cancer stages is increasing, as is the incidence of gastric cancer among the elderly population. Therefore, this study was designed to analyze surgical treatment outcomes of T1-T2 gastric cancer in elderly patients. A total of 457 patients with T1-T2 gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy between 2005 and 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were classified into two groups according to age (< 70 years versus ≥ 70 years). Clinicopathological features, surgical treatment results, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Higher ASA score (ASA 3/4), differentiated cancer, and intestinal-type tumors were more common in elderly patients. Postoperative complication rates were similar between the two groups; however, postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in the elderly group. Higher ASA score was independently associated with postoperative complications in the elderly group. Furthermore, severe postoperative complications were found as an independent factor associated with higher 90-day mortality rate. Elderly patients had a significantly poorer 5-year overall survival rate. Two surgery-related factors—total gastrectomy and complicated postoperative course—were revealed as independent prognostic factors for poor overall survival in the elderly group. Despite higher postoperative mortality rate and poorer overall survival results, elderly patients with gastric cancer should be considered for radical surgery. ASA score may be useful for predicting surgical treatment outcomes in elderly patients undergoing surgery for GC and hence assists clinicians in planning treatment strategies for each individual patient.

The optimal approach for treating cytology-positive (Cy1) gastric cancer (GC) patients without additional non-curative factors remains uncertain. While neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy shows promise, its suitability for Western patients is not well supported by existing data. To address this knowledge gap, a cohort study was conducted across four major GC treatment centers in Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine. Forty-three consecutive Cy1 GC patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2016 and 2020 were enrolled. The study evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cytology status conversion, and major pathological response rates, along with the factors influencing these outcomes. All patients underwent surgery post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with 53.5% experiencing cytological status conversion and 23.3% achieving a major pathological response. The median OS and PFS were 20 (95% CI: 16–25) and 19 (95% CI: 11–20) months, respectively. Conversion to negative cytology significantly reduced the relative risk of peritoneal progression (RR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03–0.47, p = 0.002). The study suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy holds promise as a treatment option for Cy1 GC without additional non-curative factors, associating cytology status conversion with improved long-term outcomes and reduced peritoneal relapse risk.