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

Objective: CT plays a central role in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer, which directs the use of neoadjuvant therapy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT in predicting circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer. Materials and Methods: Seventy-seven patients who were scheduled for upfront surgery for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer were prospectively enrolled, and 75 patients (38 male and 37 female; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 11 years) were finally analyzed. The CRM status was evaluated separately for the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and posterior and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) margins. Three independent radiologists reviewed the preoperative CT images and evaluated the resection margin status. The reference standard for CRM status was pathologic examination of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens in an axial plane perpendicular to the axis of the second portion of the duodenum. The diagnostic accuracy of CT was assessed for overall CRM involvement, defined as involvement of the SMA or posterior margins (per-patient analysis), and involvement of each of the three resection margins (per-margin analysis). The data were pooled using a crossed random effects model. Results: Forty patients had pathologically confirmed overall CRM involvement in pancreatic cancer, while CRM involvement was not seen in 35 patients. For overall CRM involvement, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 15% (95% confidence interval: 7%–49%) and 99% (96%–100%), respectively. For each of the resection margins, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 14% (9%–54%) and 99% (38%–100%) for the SMA margin, 12% (8%–46%) and 99% (97%–100%) for the posterior margin; and 37% (29%–53%) and 96% (31%–100%) for the SMV/PV margin, respectively. Conclusion CT showed very high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting pathological CRM involvement in pancreatic cancer.