INTRODUCTION: The extent of lymphadenectomy in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer is a topic of controversy among surgeons. This study was conducted to analyze the American National Cancer Database (NCDB) and conclude the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The NCDB for gastric cancer was utilized. Patients who received at least a partial gastrectomy were included. Patients with metastatic disease, unknown TNM stages, R1/R2 resection, or treated with a palliative intent were excluded. Joinpoint regression was used to identify the extent of lymphadenectomy that reflects the optimal survival. Cox regression analysis and Bayesian information criterion were used to identify significant survival predictors. Kaplan-Meier was applied to study overall survival and stage migration. RESULTS: 40,281 patients of 168,377 met the inclusion criteria. Joinpoint analysis showed that dissection of 29 nodes provides the optimal median survival for the overall population. Regression analysis reported the cutoff ≥29 to have a better fit in the prognostic model than that of ≥15. Dissection of ≥29 nodes in the higher stages provides a comparable overall survival to the immediately lower stage. Nonetheless, the retrieval of ≥15 nodes proved to be adequate for staging without a significant stage migration compared to ≥29 nodes. CONCLUSION: The extent of lymphadenectomy in gastric adenocarcinoma is a marker of improved resection which reflects in a longer overall survival. Our analysis concludes that the dissection of ≥15 nodes is adequate for staging. However, the dissection of 29 nodes might be needed to provide a significantly improved survival.
Adenocarcinoma* ; Gastrectomy ; Humans ; Lymph Node Excision* ; Lymph Nodes* ; Neoplasm Staging ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Surgeons

Purpose: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a devastating complication of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Minimally invasive PD (MIPD), including laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic (RPD) approaches, have comparable POPF rates to open PD (OPD). However, we hypothesize that the likelihood of having a more severe POPF, as defined as clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), would be higher in an MIPD relative to OPD. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted pancreatectomy dataset (2014–2020) was reviewed for any POPF after OPD. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared MIPD to OPD, and then RPD to LPD. Results: Among 3,083 patients who developed a POPF, 2,843 (92.2%) underwent OPD and 240 (7.8%) MIPD; of these, 25.0% were LPD (n = 60) and 75.0% RPD (n = 180). Grade B POPF was observed in 45.4% (n = 1,400), and grade C in 6.0% (n = 185). After PSM, MIPD patients had higher rates of CR-POPF (47.3% OPD vs. 54.4% MIPD, p = 0.037), as well as higher reoperation (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.006), delayed gastric emptying (29.2% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.041), and readmission rates (28.2% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.032). However, CR-POPF rates were comparable between LPD and RPD (56.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.408). Conclusion The impact of POPF is more clinically pronounced after MIPD than OPD with a more complex postoperative course. The difference appears to be attributed to the minimally invasive environment itself as no difference was noted between LPD and RPD. A clear biological explanation of this clinical observation remains missing. Further studies are warranted.