Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical gastrectomy is preferred for locally advanced gastric cancer. To avoid the problematic use of pTNM for patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) gastric cancer TNM staging system (8th edition) added ypTNM for the first time. But patients achieving pathological complete response were not covered by the new ypTNM staging system. To investigate whether pathological complete response is associated with better outcome in gastric cancer, as was reported in rectal, breast and bladder cancer. We systematically searched the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Collaboration’s Central register of controlled trials from January 1988 to April 2015 for publications which reported outcomes of patients with and without pathological complete response (pCR) (pT0N0M0) to investigate whether pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) treated with radical surgery is associated with better survival. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Both were measured with a relative risk (RR). A meta-analysis was performed using the fixed effects model. Forest plots and the Q test was used to evaluate overall heterogeneity for OS and DFS. A total of seven trials, 1143 patients were included and analyzed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery with no other preoperative treatment. The average rate of pCR was 6.74% (range: 3%-15%). The RR of patients who achieved pCR in the primary tumor and lymph nodes is 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.98; p = 0.04), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.21–0.55; p<0.0001) and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.30–0.63; p<0.0001) for one-year-OS, three-year-OS and five-year-OS, respectively. The summary RR for three-year-DFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.25–0.72; p = 0.002). Patients with resectable gastric or GEJ cancer who achieved pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can gain a better outcome than patients without pCR.

This study aims to evaluate the new ypTNM staging system in Chinese gastric cancer patients.

Background: Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC. Materials and methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I² ≤ 50%). Results: A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I²=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I²=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I²=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I²=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=−1.51, 95% CI [−2.29, −0.74], I²=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=−0.34, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.12], I²=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=−0.21, 95% CI [−0.47, 0.04], I²=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.14, 95% CI [−.26, −0.01], I²=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−0.15, 95% CI [−0.23, −0.07], I²=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=−0.30, 95% CI [−0.64, 0.04], I²=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=−1.26, 95% CI [−1.99, −0.53], I²=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I²=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I²=0%, p=0.64). Conclusion: LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

Pathological stage is considered as the best prognosis indicator for gastric cancer. With the increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), the latest TNM staging included a new pathological stage of ypTNM for patients with NACT. However, no study has investigated if ypTNM stage has the same prognostic implication as pTNM stage for gastric cancer. We retrospectively selected eligible patients within a prospectively maintained database containing all patients treated with gastric cancer in Peking University Cancer Hospital from 2007 to 2015 using overall survival as the outcome. Patients using ypTNM and pTNM were 1:1 matched by propensity scores (PS) calculated from a model containing variables associated with ypTNM use or survival. Overall survival was compared by unconditional Cox regression. Conventional multivariate analysis was conducted to corroborate PS matching results. 1441 patients were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 37 months (range = 2–106). The matched sample contained 756 patients. After PS matching, patients with specific ypTNM stage were 1.34 (95%CI = 1.05–1.72, P = 0.019) times more likely to die than patients with the same pTNM stage. Similar to the results of PS matching, multivariate Cox regression yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.35 (95%CI = 1.09–1.67, P = 0.006). Subgroup analysis indicated this survival difference between ypTNM and pTNM stage varied by the specific TNM stage of patients. The HR was 3.44 (95%CI = 1.06–11.18, P = 0.040) and 1.28 (95%CI = 1.00–1.62, P = 0.048) for patients in stage I and III, respectively; whereas for stage II patients, no significant difference was observed (HR = 1.37, 95%CI = 0.78–2.38, P = 0.27). Gastric cancer patients with specific ypTNM stage had worse prognosis compared to those at the same stage defined by pTNM.