Objective: To investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal perfusion chemotherapy combined with intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (HIPEC-IP-IV) in the treatment of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer (GCPM). Methods: This was a descriptive case series study. Indications for HIPEC-IP-IV treatment include: (1) pathologically confirmed gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma; (2) age 20-85 years; (3) peritoneal metastases as the sole form of Stage IV disease, confirmed by computed tomography, laparoscopic exploration, ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid cytology; and (4) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Contraindications include: (1) routine blood tests, liver and renal function, and electrocardiogram showing no contraindications to chemotherapy; (2) no serious cardiopulmonary dysfunction; and (3) no intestinal obstruction or peritoneal adhesions. According to the above criteria, data of patients with GCPM who had undergone laparoscopic exploration and HIPEC from June 2015 to March 2021 in the Peking University Cancer Hospital Gastrointestinal Center were analyzed, after excluding those who had received antitumor medical or surgical treatment. Two weeks after laparoscopic exploration and HIPEC, the patients received intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy. They were evaluated every two to four cycles. Surgery was considered if the treatment was effective, as shown by achieving stable disease or a partial or complete response and negative cytology. The primary outcomes were surgical conversion rate, R0 resection rate, and overall survival. Results: Sixty-nine previously untreated patients with GCPM had undergone HIPEC-IP-IV, including 43 men and 26 women; with a median age of 59 (24-83) years. The median PCI was 10 (1-39). Thirteen patients (18.8%) underwent surgery after HIPEC-IP-IV, R0 being achieved in nine of them (13.0%). The median overall survival (OS) was 16.1 months. The median OS of patients with massive or moderate ascites and little or no ascites were 6.6 and 17.9 months, respectively (P<0.001). The median OS of patients who had undergone R0 surgery, non-R0 surgery, and no surgery were 32.8, 8.0, and 14.9 months, respectively (P=0.007). Conclusions: HIPEC-IP-IV is a feasible treatment protocol for GCPM. Patients with massive or moderate ascites have a poor prognosis. Candidates for surgery should be selected carefully from those in whom treatment has been effective and R0 should be aimed for.
Male ; Humans ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Young Adult ; Adult ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* ; Peritoneal Neoplasms/secondary* ; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Hyperthermia, Induced/methods* ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use* ; Perfusion ; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures ; Survival Rate

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion on postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (GID) of gastric cancer with meta-analysis. METHODS: The articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture and moxibustion treatment for postoperative GID of gastric cancer were retrieved from the following databases from the time of database establishment to December 31, 2020, including PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, VIP database and China Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed). RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Using Stata16.0 software, sensitivity analysis and publication bias test were performed. RESULTS: A total of 16 RCTs were included finally, including 1 360 patients, of which, there were 681 cases in the intervention group and 679 cases in the control group. Meta-analysis results showed that acupuncture and moxibustion shortened the time of first flatus (P<0.000 01, MD =-14.52, 95%CI = [-17.31, -11.74]), the time of first bowel sound (P<0.000 01, MD =-10.50, 95%CI =[-13.99, -7.01]) and the time of first defecation (P<0.000 1, MD =-13.79, 95%CI =[-20.09, -7.50]). Meanwhile, acupuncture and moxibustion shortened the time of the first food intake (P<0.000 1, MD =-3.23, 95%CI = [-3.45, -3.00]) and the hospital stay (P<0.000 01, MD =-1.94, 95%CI =[-2.20, -1.69]) after gastric cancer operation, and reduced the incidences of postoperative adverse reactions, i.e. nausea and vomiting (P =0.000 3, RR =0.43, 95%CI =[0.28, 0.68]) and abdominal distention (P =0.000 5, RR =0.41, 95%CI =[0.25, 0.68]). CONCLUSION Acupuncture and moxibustion can promote the recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function in the patients with gastric cancer. But, for the comparison among different measures of acupuncture and moxibustion intervention, it needs more high-quality trials for a further verification.
Acupuncture Therapy/methods* ; Humans ; Moxibustion/methods* ; Nausea ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* ; Vomiting

Objective: Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and a possibility of peritoneal metastasis even if receiving gastrectomy. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can effectively kill free cancer cells or small lesions in the abdominal cavity. At present, preventive HIPEC still lacks safety evaluation in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. This study aims to explore the safety of radical resection combined with HIPEC in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Methods: A descriptive case series study was carried out. Clinicopathological data of 130 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who underwent radical resection + HIPEC at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from January 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria: (1) locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma confirmed by postoperative pathology; (2) no distant metastasis was found before surgery; (3) radical resection; (4) at least one HIPEC treatment was performed. Exclusion criteria: (1) incomplete clinicopathological data; (2) tumor metastasis was found during operation; (3) concomitant with other tumors. HIPEC method: all the patients received the first HIPEC immediately after D2 radical resection, and returned to the ward after waking up from anesthesia; the second and the third HIPEC were carried out according to the patient's postoperative recovery and tolerance; interval between two HIPEC treatments was 48 h. Observation indicators: (1) basic information, including gender, age, body mass index, etc.; (2) treatment status; (3) perioperative adverse events: based on the standard of common adverse events published by the US Department of Health and Public Health (CTCAE 5.0), the adverse events of grade 2 and above during the treatment period were recorded, including hypoalbuminemia, bone marrow cell reduction, wound complications, abdominal infection, lung infection, gastroparesis, anemia, postoperative bleeding, anastomotic leakage, intestinal obstruction, pleural effusion, abdominal distension, impaired liver function, and finally a senior professional title chief physician reviewed the above adverse events and made a safety evaluation of the patient; (4) association between times of HIPEC treatment and adverse events in perioperative period; (5) analysis of risk factors for adverse events in perioperative period. Results: Among the 130 patients, 79 were males and 51 were females with a median age of 59 (54, 66) years and an average body mass index of (23.9±7.4) kg/m(2). The tumor size was (5.4±3.0) cm and 100 patients (76.9%) had nerve invasion. All the 130 patients received radical resection + HIPEC and 125 (96.2%) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The mean operative time was (345.6±52.3) min and intraoperative blood loss was (82.0±36.5) ml. One HIPEC treatment was performed in 54 patients (41.5%), 2 HIPEC treatments were in 57 (43.8%), and 3 HIPEC treatments were in 19 (14.6%). The average postoperative hospital stay was (13.1±7.5) d. A total of 57 patients (43.8%) had 71 cases of postoperative complications of different degrees. Among them, the incidence of hypoalbuminemia was 22.3% (29/130), and the grade 2 and above anemia was 15.4% (20/130), lung infection was 3.8% (5/130), bone marrow cell suppression was 3.7% (4/130), abdominal cavity infection was 2.3% (3/130), and liver damage was 2.3% (3/130), wound complications was 1.5% (2/130), abdominal distension was 1.5% (2/130), anastomotic leakage was 0.8% (1/130), gastroparesis was 0.8% (1/130) and intestinal obstruction was 0.8% (1/130), etc. These adverse events were all improved by conservative treatments. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events during the perioperative period among patients undergoing 1, 2, and 3 times of HIPEC treatments (all P>0.05). Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses showed that age > 60 years (OR: 2.346, 95%CI: 1.069-5.150, P=0.034) and neurological invasion (OR: 2.992, 95%CI: 1.050-8.523, P=0.040) were independent risk factors for adverse events in locally advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing radical resection+HIPEC (both P<0.05). Conclusions: Radical surgery + HIPEC does not significantly increase the incidence of perioperative complications in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The age >60 years and nerve invasion are independent risk factors for adverse events in these patients.
Female ; Gastrectomy ; Humans ; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Peritoneal Neoplasms/therapy* ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*

The number of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing year by year. The key technical points such as surgical approach, lymph node dissection and GI tract reconstruction have gradually reached their maturity. With the emergence of proofs of evidence-based neoadjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for advanced AEG is also gradually accepted by most surgeons and oncologists. European scholars have previously started researches on MIS after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer and AEG. Domestic scholars also raise practical suggestions on the application of neoadjuvant therapy for AEG via the cooperation between gastrointestinal and thoracic surgeons, demonstrating the trend in standardization and individualization. But there is still no consent to the indication of MIS after neoadjuvant therapy. Furthermore, there is also a lack of the standardization of technical points for MIS, GI tract reconstruction, short- and long-term outcomes. Such associated problems have been the hot controversy and exploration in recent years. This article describes current progress of neoadjuvant therapy for AEG, current status of MIS after the neoadjuvant therapy in Europe, America, East Asia, including China, and related researches plus future prospects, hoping for better clinical outcomes.
Adenocarcinoma/surgery* ; Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery* ; Esophagogastric Junction/surgery* ; Humans ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*

OBJECTIVE: To observe the efficacy of acupuncture on symptom burden in patients with gastric cancer during adjuvant chemotherapy after gastrectomy. METHODS: A total of 58 patients were randomized into a high-dose acupuncture group (19 cases, 5 cases dropped off), a low-dose acupuncture group (20 cases, 6 cases dropped off) and a control group (19 cases, 2 cases dropped off). Conventional chemotherapy and antiemetic treatment were adopted in the control group. On the basis of the treatment in the control group, acupuncture was applied 7 times each chemotherapy cycle for totally 21 times in the high-dose acupuncture group, and 3 times each chemotherapy cycle for totally 9 times in the low-dose acupuncture group. Baihui (GV 20), Zusanli (ST 36), Neiguan (PC 6), etc. were selected in the two acupuncture groups, as well as back-shu points selected by the meridian heat sensing technique. Electroacupuncture was connected to ipsilateral Zusanli (ST 36) and Neiguan (PC 6), with continuous wave, 2 Hz in frequency for 20 min. The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) score was observed on day 1-7, 14, and 21 of each cycle of chemotherapy respectively in the 3 groups. RESULTS: The symptom burden was worst within 7 days of each cycle of chemotherapy in the 3 groups. After the 3rd chemotherapy cycle, the total score of ESAS in the low-dose acupuncture group was lower than the control group (P<0.05), the total score and the scores of feeling of non-well being, pain and shortness of breath of ESAS in the acupuncture group (the high-dose acupuncture group combined with the low-dose acupuncture group) were lower than the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION Acupuncture shows promising effect in controlling symptom burden during adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy.
Humans ; Acupuncture Points ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* ; Acupuncture Therapy ; Gastrectomy/adverse effects* ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant

BACKGROUND: The neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in advanced gastric cancer, but the effects on safety and survival are still controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the overall survival and short-term surgical outcomes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACS) and surgery alone (SA) for locally advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were explored for relative studies from January 2000 to January 2021. The quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies was evaluated using the modified Jadad scoring system and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, respectively. The Review Manager software (version 5.3) was used to perform this meta-analysis. The overall survival was evaluated as the primary outcome, while perioperative indicators and post-operative complications were evaluated as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies, including 1420 NACS cases and 1942 SA cases, were enrolled. The results showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival (P = 0.240), harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.200), total complications (P = 0.080), and 30-day post-operative mortality (P = 0.490) between the NACS and SA groups. However, the NACS group was associated with a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), a higher R0 resection rate (P = 0.003), less reoperation (P = 0.030), and less anastomotic leakage (P = 0.007) compared with SA group. CONCLUSIONS Compared with SA, NACS was considered safe and feasible for improved R0 resection rate as well as decreased reoperation and anastomotic leakage. While unbenefited overall survival indicated a less important effect of NACS on long-term oncological outcomes.
Humans ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignancy in China. Most of the patients of gastric cancer treated clinically are in advanced stage. In the past years, with the progress of anti-cancer drug therapy, after the comprehensive treatment based on drugs therapy of inoperative stage IV gastric cancer, some cases can reduce the tumor stage and get the opportunity of radical operation. Some of the patients who underwent surgical treatment can get the chance of long-term survival. The results of REGATTA trial confirmed that palliative surgery plus chemotherapy could not improve the long-term survival of patients with stage IV gastric cancer. Neoadjuvant intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy can reduce the tumor stage of some cases of stage IV gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis and receive surgical treatment, so as to gain the chance of long-term survival. Regimen of intraperitoneal hyperthermia chemotherapy combined with PHOENIX trial is expected to improve the conversion operation rate of gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis. Paclitaxel-based three-drug chemotherapy can reduce the tumor stage of some inoperable advanced gastric cancer and obtain the opportunity of radical operation, improving the disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate of patients, thus has become the cornerstone of conversion therapy for stage IV gastric cancer. Antiangiogenic targeted drug apatinib combined with paclitaxel is safe and reliable, and can be used as an alternative for the conversion therapy of stage IV gastric cancer, which provides a new idea for cytotoxic drugs combined with targeted drugs. In the era of immunotherapy, the combined application and first-line application of immunosuppressive drugs has become a clinical consensus. For advanced Her-2 positive esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma cases, the successful exploration of the four-drug combination of chemotherapy+ anti-Her-2 targeted drugs+ anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody combined with the first-line therapy has opened up a new era of transformational therapy for stage IV gastric cancer. Gastric cancer is a malignant tumor with high heterogeneity, the classification of stage IV gastric cancer represented by Yoshida classification is based on imaging, and a more reasonable classification method should be developed in combination with gene detection in the future. Based on this, an individualized and accurate conversion therapy plan is formulated, so as to effectively improve the long-term survival of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
Adenocarcinoma/surgery* ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use* ; China ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Esophagogastric Junction ; Gastrectomy ; Humans ; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ; Infusions, Parenteral ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Staging ; Peritoneal Neoplasms/secondary* ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has deeply influenced the clinical practice of surgery, anesthesia and nursing since its inception in 1997. The successful implementation of perioperative ERAS in gastric cancer depends on continually boosting the awareness and acceptance of ERAS among medical staff, carrying out multidisciplinary collaboration, improving patients' compliance and combining key items to the clinical pathways. Future efforts should be made to explore the most appropriate implementation strategy of perioperative ERAS in gastric cancer.
Critical Pathways ; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ; Humans ; Perioperative Care ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control* ; Stomach Neoplasms/therapy*

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and prognosis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for Siewert type II and III adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). Methods: This study is a prospective randomized controlled clinical study (NCT01962246). AEG patients who were treated at the Third Department of Surgery of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University from February 2012 to June 2016 were included. All of the enrolled patients were diagnosed with type II or III locally advanced AEG gastric cancer (T2-4N0-3M0 or T1N1-3M0) by gastroscopy and CT before operation; the longitudinal axis of the lesion was ≤ 8 cm; no anti-tumor treatment was previously given and no contraindications of chemotherapy and surgery were found. Case exclusion criteria: serious diseases accompanied by liver and kidney, cardiovascular system and other vital organs; allergy to capecitabine or oxaliplatin drugs or excipients; receiving any form of chemotherapy or other research drugs; pregnant or lactating women; patients with diseases resulting in difficulty to take capecitabine or with concurrent tumors. Based on sample size estimation, a total of 150 AEG patients were enrolled. Using the random number table method, the enrolled patients were divided into the nCRT group and the direct operation group with 75 cases in each group. The nCRT group received XELOX chemotherapy (capecitabine+ oxaliplatin) before surgery and concurrent radiotherapy (45 Gy, 25 times, 1.8 Gy/d, 5 times/week). Clinical efficacy of the nCRT group was evaluated by the solid tumor efficacy evaluation standard (RECIST1.1) and the tumor volume reduction rate was measured on CT. After completing the preoperative examination in the direct operation group, and 8-10 weeks after the end of nCRT in the nCRT group, surgery was performed. Laparoscopic exploration was initially performed. According to the Japanese "Regulations for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer", a transabdominal radical total gastrectomy combined with perigastric lymph node dissection was performed. The primary outcome was the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival rate (DFS); the secondary outcomes were R0 resection rate, the toxicity of chemotherapy, and surgical complications. The follow-up ended on December 31, 2019. The postoperative recurrence, metastasis and survival time of the two groups were collected. Results: After excluding patients with incomplete clinical data, patients or family members requesting to withdraw informed consent, and those failing to follow the treatment plan, 63 cases in the nCRT group and 69 cases in the direct operation group were finally enrolled in the study. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of the two groups (all P>0.05). Sixty-three patients in the nCRT group were evaluated by RECIST1.1 after treatment, the image based effective rate was 42.9% (27/63), and the stable disease rate was 98.4% (62/63); the tumor volume before and after nCRT measured on CT was (58.8±24.4) cm(3) and (46.6±25.7) cm(3), respectively, the effective rate of tumor volume reduction measured by CT was 47.6% (30/63). Incidences of neutrophilopenia [65.1% (41/63) vs. 40.6% (28/69), χ(2)=7.923, P=0.005], nausea [81.0% (51/63) vs. 56.5% (39/69), χ(2)=9.060, P=0.003] and fatigue [74.6% (47/63) vs. 42.0% (29/69), χ(2)=14.306, P=0.001] in the nCRT group were significantly higher than those in the direct surgery group. Radiation gastritis/esophagitis and radiation pneumonia were unique adverse reactions in the nCRT group, with incidences of 52.4% (33/63) and 15.9%(10/63), respectively. The classification of tumor regression of 63 patients in nCRT group presented as 11 cases of grade 0 (17.5%), 20 cases of grade 1 (31.7%), 28 cases of grade 2 (44.4%), and 5 cases of grade 3 (7.9%). Eleven (17.5%) patients achieved pathologic complete response. Sixty-one (96.8%) patients in the nCRT group underwent R0 resection, which was higher than 87.0% (60/69) in the direct surgery group (χ(2)=4.199, P=0.040). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the specimens in the nCRT group and the direct operation group was 27.6±12.4 and 26.8±14.6, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (t=-0.015, P=0.976). The pathological lymph node metastasis rate and lymph node ratio in the two groups were 44.4% (28/63) vs. 76.8% (53/69), and 4.0% (70/1 739) vs. 21.9% (404/1 847), respectively with statistically significant differences (χ(2)=14.552, P<0.001, and χ(2)=248.736, P<0.001, respectively). During a median follow-up of 52 (27-77) months, the 3-year DFS rate in the nCRT group and the direct surgery group was 52.4% and 39.1% (P=0.049), and the 3-year OS rate was 63.4% and 52.2% (P=0.019), respectively. According to whether the tumor volume reduction rate measured by CT was ≥ 12.5%, 63 patients in the nCRT group were divided into the effective group (n=30) and the ineffective group (n=33). The 3-year DFS rate of these two subgracps was 56.6% and 45.5%, respectively without significant difference (P=0.098). The 3-year OS rate was 73.3% and 51.5%,respectively with significant difference (P=0.038). The 3-year DFS rate of patients with the tumor regression grades 0, 1, 2 and 3 was 81.8%, 70.0%, 44.4%, and 20.0%, repectively (P=0.024); the 3-year OS rate was 81.8%, 75.0%, 48.1% and 40.0%, repectively (P=0.048). Conclusion: nCRT improves treatment efficacy of Siewert type II and III AEG patients, and the long-term prognosis is good.
Adenocarcinoma/therapy* ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use* ; Capecitabine/administration & dosage* ; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant ; Esophagogastric Junction/surgery* ; Gastrectomy ; Humans ; Lymph Node Excision ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Staging ; Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage* ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/therapy*

Objective: To explore the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (CapeOX) or oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) regimen neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Clinical data of patients diagnosed as advanced gastric cancer undergoing CapeOX/SOX neoadjuvant chemotherapy and standard laparoscopic radical operation for gastric cancer in Ruijin Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from April 2016 to April 2019 were retrospectively collected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age≥18 years; (2) gastric adenocarcinoma was confirmed by histopathology and the clinical stage was T3-4aN+M0; (3) tumor could be resectable; (4) preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy was CapeOX or SOX regimen without radiotherapy or other regimen chemotherapy; (5) no other concurrent malignant tumor; (6) the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score ≤ 1; (7) no bone marrow suppression; (8) normal liver and kidney function. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with recurrent gastric cancer; (2) patients receiving emergency surgery due to tumor perforation, bleeding, obstruction, etc.; (3) allergy to oxaliplatin, S-1, capecitabine or any drug excipients; (4) diagnosed with coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, or the New York Heart Association class III or IV; (5) pregnant or lactating women. A total of 118 patients were enrolled as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, and 379 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who received surgery combined with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy over the same period simultaneously were included as the adjuvant chemotherapy group. After propensity score matching was performed including gender, age, ECOG score, tumor site, clinical stage, chemotherapy regimen and other factors by 1:1 ratio, there were 40 cases in each group. The differences between the two groups in general conditions, efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, intraoperative conditions, postoperative conditions, histopathological results, chemotherapy-related adverse events, and survival status were compared and analyzed. Results: Comparison of baseline demographics between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference (all P>0.05). In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, 5.0% (2/40) of patients achieved clinical complete response, 57.5% (23/40) achieved partial response, 32.5% (13/40) remained stable disease, and 5.0% (2/40) had disease progression before surgery. Objective response rate was 62.5% (25/40), and disease control rate was 95.0% (38/40). There were no statistically significant differences between neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and adjuvant chemotherapy group in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node harvested, length of postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative mortality and morbidity (all P>0.05). Postoperative complications were well managed with conservative treatment. No Clavien-Dindo IV or V complications were observed in both groups. Pathological results showed that the proportion of patients with pathological stage T1 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group was significantly higher than that in the adjuvant chemotherapy group [27.5% (11/40) vs. 5.0% (2/40)], while the proportion of patients with pathological stage T3 was significantly lower than that in the adjuvant chemotherapy group [20.0% (8/40) vs. 45.0% (18/40)], with statistically significant difference (χ(2)=15.432, P=0.001). In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, there were 4 cases of tumor regression grade 0, 8 cases of grade 1, 16 cases of grade 2, and 12 cases of grade 3. The pathological complete response rate was 10% (4/40), the overall pathological response rate was 70.0% (28/40). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse events between neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and adjuvant chemotherapy group [40% (16/40) vs. 37.5% (15/40), P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in OS (43 months vs. 40 months) and 3-year OS rate (66.1% vs. 59.8%) between neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and adjuvant chemotherapy group (P=0.428). The disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year DFS rates of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group were significantly superior to those of the adjuvant chemotherapy group (36 months vs. 28 months, 51.4% vs. 35.8%, P=0.048). Conclusion: CapeOX or SOX regimen neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a safe, effective and feasible treatment mode for advanced gastric cancer without increasing surgical risk and can improve the DFS of patients.
Adenocarcinoma/surgery* ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use* ; Capecitabine/administration & dosage* ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant ; Drug Combinations ; Humans ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage* ; Oxonic Acid/administration & dosage* ; Radiotherapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* ; Tegafur/administration & dosage* ; Treatment Outcome