PURPOSE: To compare postoperative complications, long-term survival, and quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) and laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG). METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with preoperatively diagnosed stage IA gastric adenocarcinoma (≤ 3 cm) were assigned to undergo either LSG or LSNNS. Observers were not blinded to patient grouping. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival (3y-DFS). Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, QOL, 3-year disease-specific survival (3y-DSS), and 3-year overall survival (3y-OS). RESULTS: In total, 527 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population for the primary outcome (LSG, 269; LSNNS, 258). Stomach-preserving surgery was performed in 210 patients (81%) in the LSNNS group. During the median follow-up duration, the 3y-DFS rates in the LSG and LSNNS groups were 95.5% and 91.8%, respectively (difference: 3.7%; 95% CI, –0.6 to 8.1). Three patients with recurrence and five with metachronous gastric cancer in the LSNNS group underwent standard surgery. Two patients with distant metastasis in both groups were treated with palliative chemotherapy. The 3y-DSS and 3y-OS rates in the LSG and LSNNS groups were 99.5% and 99.1% ( P = .59) and 99.2% and 97.6% ( P = .17), respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 19.0% of the LSG group and 15.5% of the LSNNS group ( P = .294). The LSNNS group showed better physical function ( P = .015), less symptoms ( P < .001), and improved nutrition than the LSG group. CONCLUSION: LSNNS did not show noninferiority to LSG for 3y-DFS, with a 5% margin. However, the 3y-DSS and 3y-OS were not different after rescue surgery in cases of recurrence/metachronous gastric cancer, and LSNNS had better long-term QOL and nutrition than LSG.

Background Sentinel node navigation surgery reduces the extent of gastric and lymph node dissection, and may improve quality of life. The benefit and harm of laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery (LSNNS) for early gastric cancer is unknown. The SENORITA (SEntinel Node ORIented Tailored Approach) trial investigated the pathological and surgical outcomes of LSNNS compared with laparoscopic standard gastrectomy (LSG) with lymph node dissection. Methods The SENORITA trial was an investigator‐initiated, open‐label, parallel‐assigned, non‐inferiority, multicentre RCT conducted in Korea. The primary endpoint was 3‐year disease‐free survival. The secondary endpoints, morbidity and mortality within 30 days of surgery, are reported in the present study. Results A total of 580 patients were randomized to LSG (292) or LSNNS (288). Surgery was undertaken in 527 patients (LSG 269, LSNNS 258). LSNNS could be performed according to the protocol in 245 of 258 patients, and a sentinel node basin was detected in 237 (96·7 per cent) Stomach‐preserving surgery was carried out in 210 of 258 patients (81·4 per cent). Postoperative complications occurred in 51 patients in the LSG group (19·0 per cent) and 40 (15·5 per cent) in the LSNNS group (P = 0·294). Complications with a Clavien–Dindo grade of III or higher occurred in 16 (5·9 per cent) and 13 (5·0 per cent) patients in the LSG and LSNNS groups respectively (P = 0·647). Conclusion The rate and severity of complications following LSNNS for early gastric cancer are comparable to those after LSG with lymph node dissection. Registration number: NCT01804998 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Kim DJ, et al. J Gastric Cancer. 2024 Dec;25:e8. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e8

Anastomotic leakage is one of the common causes of serious morbidity and death after gastrectomy. The use of surgical treatment for leakage decreased due to the development of nonsurgical management. However, if nonsurgical management fails to control the spread of intra-abdominal infection, emergency surgical treatment is required. The authors wished to determine in which cases surgical treatment is needed for postoperative leakage and to identify treatment and prevention strategies. If a patient’s vital signs are stable, local abscesses can be cured by conservative treatment after percutaneous drain insertion; if there is no improvement in anastomotic leakage, endoscopic treatment such as clipping, vacuum, and stent placement can be performed. If a patient’s vital signs are unstable or patient shows diffuse peritonitis, surgical treatment should be performed. A surgical plan can be established according to leakage location. The duodenal stump may first require conservative treatment. It is recommended that surgical treatment be attempted first for anastomotic leakage of gastrojejunostomy site and gastric stump in remnant stomach. In conclusion, the need for surgical treatment is determined depending on vital signs and presence of diffuse peritonitis. During surgical treatment, a strategic approach is required according to the patient’s condition and the anatomical location of leakage.

Peroxiredoxin IV (PRDX4) is a multifunctional protein that is involved in cell protection against oxidative injury, regulation of cell proliferation, modulation of intracellular signaling, and the pathogenesis of tumors. We previously conducted a proteomic analysis to investigate tumor‑specific protein expression in gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether PRDX4 could be a marker of poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. Immunohistochemistry was used to validate PRDX4 as a prognostic marker for gastric cancer. Short hairpin RNA (shRNA)‑mediated knockdown of PRDX4 expression in AGS cells and MKN28 cells was used for functional studies, and PRDX4 overexpression in PRDX4‑depleted cells was used for knock‑in studies. Based on immunohistochemistry data, TNM stage and PRDX4 were independent prognostic factors in the Cox proportional hazard model (P<0.05). In the survival analysis, the PRDX4‑overexpressing group demonstrated significantly worse survival than the PRDX4‑underexpression group (P<0.01). In vitro, knockdown of PRDX4 expression by shRNA caused a significant decrease in cancer invasion. Conversely, overexpression of PRDX4 in PRDX4‑depleted cancer cells promoted migration and invasion. By measuring the expression of EMT‑related genes, we found that E‑cadherin was increased in shPRDX4 cells compared with control shMKN28 cells, and snail and slug were decreased in shPRDX4‑1 cells compared with sh‑control cells. Furthermore, the expression levels of these genes could be recovered in rescue experiments. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggested that PRDX4 is a marker of poor prognosis in gastric cancer and that PRDX4 is associated with cancer cell migration and invasion via EMT.

Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) refers to the endoscopic dissection of the mucosal or submucosal layers with laparoscopic seromuscular resection. We recommend a treatment algorithm for the LECS procedure for gastric benign tumors according to the protruding type. In the exophytic type, endoscopic-assisted wedge resection can be performed. In the endophytic type, endoscopic-assisted wedge resection of the anterior wall is relatively easy to perform, and endoscopic-assisted transgastric resection, laparoscopicassisted intragastric surgery, or single-incision intragastric resection in the posterior wall and esophagogastric junction (EG Jx) can be attempted. We propose an algorithm for the LECS procedure for early gastric cancer according to the tumor location. The endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure can be adapted for all areas of the stomach, and single-incision ESD can be performed in the mid to high body and the EG Jx. In full-thickness gastric resection, laparoscopy-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection can be adapted for the entire area of the stomach, but it cannot be applied to the pyloric and EG Jx. In conclusion, surgeons need to select the LECS procedure according to tumor type, tumor location, the surgeon's individual experience, and the situation of the institution while also considering the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.