PURPOSE: Totally laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a technically and oncologically challenging procedure for surgeons. This study aimed to compare the oncologic feasibility and technical safety of TLG for AGC versus early gastric cancer (EGC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2016, 535 patients (EGC, 375; AGC, 160) underwent curative TLG for gastric cancer. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes of both patient groups were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Patients with AGC required a longer operation time and experienced more intraoperative blood loss than those with EGC did. However, patients from both the AGC and EGC groups demonstrated similar short-term surgical outcomes such as postoperative morbidity (14.4% vs. 13.3%, P=0.626), mortality (0% vs. 0.5%, P=0.879), time-to-first oral intake (2.7 days for both groups, P=0.830), and postoperative hospital stay (10.2 days vs. 10.1 days, P=0.886). D2 lymph node dissection could be achieved in the AGC group (95%), with an adequate number of lymph nodes being dissected (36.0±14.9). In the AGC group, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 80.5% and 73.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TLG is as safe and effective for AGC as it is for EGC.
Disease-Free Survival ; Gastrectomy* ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph Nodes ; Mortality ; Stomach Neoplasms* ; Surgeons

Purpose: Lymph node (LN) metastasis is a crucial factor in the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (GC) and is known to occur more frequently in cases with an advanced T stage.This study aimed to analyze the survival data of patients with advanced LN metastasis in T1 GC. Materials and Methods: From January 2008 to June 2018, 677 patients with pathological stage II GC who underwent radical gastrectomy were divided into an early GC group (EG: T1N2 and T1N3a, n=103) and an advanced GC (AGC) group (AG: T2N1, T2N2, T3N0, T3N1, and T4aN0, n=574). Short- and long-term survival rates were compared between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 80.6% (n=83) of the patients in the EG group and 52.8% (n=303) in the AG group had stage IIA AGC. The extent of LN dissection, number of retrieved LNs, and shortterm morbidity and mortality rates did not differ between the 2 groups. The 5-year relapsefree survival (RFS) of all patients was 87.8% and the overall survival was 84.0%. RFS was lower in the EG group than in the AG group (82.2% vs. 88.7%, P=0.047). This difference was more pronounced among patients with stage IIA (82.4% vs. 92.9%, P=0.003). Conclusions T1 GC with multiple LN metastases seems to have a worse prognosis compared to tumors with higher T-stages at the same level. Adjuvant chemotherapy is highly recommended for these patients, and future staging systems may require upstaging T1N2-stage tumors.

Background: There are no clear guidelines to determine whether to perform D1 or D1+ lymph node dissection in early gastric cancer (EGC). This study aimed to develop a nomogram for estimating the risk of extraperigastric lymph node metastasis (LNM). Materials and Methods: Between 2009 and 2019, a total of 4,482 patients with pathologically confirmed T1 disease at 6 affiliated hospitals were included in this study. The basic clinicopathological characteristics of the positive and negative extraperigastric LNM groups were compared. The possible risk factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. Based on these results, a risk prediction model was developed. A nomogram predicting extraperigastric LNM was used for internal validation. Results: Multivariate analyses showed that tumor size (cut-off value 3.0 cm, odds ratio [OR]=1.886, P=0.030), tumor depth (OR=1.853 for tumors with sm2 and sm3 invasion, P=0.010), cross-sectional location (OR=0.490 for tumors located on the greater curvature, P=0.0303), differentiation (OR=0.584 for differentiated tumors, P=0.0070), and lymphovascular invasion (OR=11.125, P<0.001) are possible risk factors for extraperigastric LNM. An equation for estimating the risk of extraperigastric LNM was derived from these risk factors. The equation was internally validated by comparing the actual metastatic rate with the predicted rate, which showed good agreement. Conclusions A nomogram for estimating the risk of extraperigastric LNM in EGC was successfully developed. Although there are some limitations to applying this model because it was developed based on pathological data, it can be optimally adapted for patients who require curative gastrectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection.

There have been several reports of complications of small bowel lymphoma, such as bleeding, obstruction, and perforation, often require emergency surgery. It is hardly showed complications of bleeding and wound dehiscence for diffuse large B cell lymphoma with distal ileum involvement, which needed urgent surgery and medical management. A 65-year-old man with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with distal ileum involvement experienced both intestinal bleeding and perforation during the course of treatment. As the patient was diagnosed with stage III disease, resection before chemotherapy was not considered due to the resulting delay in chemotherapy, which necessitated sufficient tissue healing. Chemotherapy is important when treating small bowel lymphoma, complications such as bleeding and perforation should always be considered for the treatment of small bowel lymphoma, and surgery is necessary in this situation. After surgery of the small bowel, subsequent chemotherapy could cause wound dehiscence and perforation; therefore, adequate recovery time should be given before chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The surgical outcomes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer were inferior compared with those of non-ESRD patients. This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of ESRD patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2004 and 2014, 38 patients (OG: 21 patients, LG: 17 patients) with ESRD underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Comparisons were made based on the clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and long-term survival rates. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in the clinicopathological characteristics of either group. LG patients had lower estimated blood loss volumes than OG patients (LG vs. OG: 94 vs. 275 mL, P=0.005). The operation time and postoperative hospital stay were similar in both the groups. The postoperative morbidity for LG and OG patients was 41.1% and 33.3%, respectively (P=0.873). No significant difference was observed in the long-term overall survival rates between the 2 groups (5-year overall survival, LG vs. OG: 82.4% vs. 64.7%, P=0.947). CONCLUSIONS: In ESRD patients, LG yielded non-inferior short- and long-term surgical outcomes compared to OG. Laparoscopic procedures might be safely adopted for ESRD patients who can benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
Gastrectomy* ; Humans ; Kidney Failure, Chronic* ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Renal Insufficiency ; Stomach Neoplasms* ; Survival Rate