Search

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy caused a limitation of the resources of the health system, which necessarily led to their rationalization in the critical phase (phase 1) and a reorganization of the system in the following phase (phase 2). The Italian Society of Oncological Surgery–SICO has drafted these practical recommendations, calibrated on the most recent scientific literature and taking into account current health regulations and common sense. Surgical activity during phase 1 and 2 should follow a dynamic model, considering architectural structures, hospital mission, organizational models. Surgical delay should not affect oncological prognosis. However, COVID-19-positive cancer patients should be postponed until the infection is cured. The patients to consider more carefully before delaying surgery are those who have completed neoadjuvant therapy, patients with high biological aggressiveness tumors or without therapeutic alternatives. The multidisciplinary discussions are fundamental for sharing clinical decisions; videoconference meetings are preferable and use of telemedicine for follow-up is recommended. Especially in phase 1, maximum effort must be made to reduce the spread of the pandemic. Prefer intra-corporeal rather than open anastomosis during laparoscopy and mechanical rather than hand-sewn anastomosis in open surgery. Consider PPE for caregivers during stoma management. Minimal invasive surgery is not discouraged, because there is little evidence for augmented risk. Specific procedures have to be followed and use of energy devices has to be limited. Training programs with COVID-19 + patients are not recommended. All staff in OR should be trained with specific courses on specific PPE use. Differentiate recommendations are presented for every district cancer. Surgical oncology during phase 2 should be guaranteed by individual and distinct protocols and pathways between cancer patients and COVID-19 + patients with resources specifically addressed to the two distinct kind of patients to limit diagnostic/therapeutic interferences or slowdowns. These recommendations are based on currently available evidence about management of oncologic patients during COVID-19 pandemic, were endorsed by the SICO Executive Board, and are considered suitable for nationwide diffusion. They will be subject to updates and revisions in case of new and relevant scientific acquisitions.

Background Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)—a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders—that should be reported by future trials in this field. Methods Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. Results Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and ‘serious’ adverse events. Conclusion A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Purpose The clinical significance of VEGF-A expression in gastric cancer (GC) has been reported with contradicting results. We analyzed the expression and clinical significance of VEGF-A in a wide Italian cohort of GC specimens. Methods VEGF-A expression was tested by immunohistochemistry in 507 patients with GC of all clinical stages. The impact of VEGF-A on overall survival (OS) was evaluated in conjunction with clinical and pathological parameters. Results In the Italian cohort we studied VEGF-A was not an independent prognostic factor neither at the univariate nor at multivariate analysis. Conclusions Although frequently expressed, in our study VEGF-A was not able to discriminate between groups of patients with different risk.

Background The aim of the present multicentre observational study was to evaluate potential changes in clinical and pathological features of patients with gastric cancer (GC) treated in a 15-year interval. Methods A centralized prospective database including clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data from 2822 patients who had resection of a primary GC was analysed. The analysis focused on three periods: 1991–1995 (period 1), 1996–2000 (period 2) and 2001–2005 (period 3). Surgical procedure, pathological classification and follow-up were standardized among centres. Results The number of resections decreased from 1024 in period 1 to 955 and 843 in periods 2 and 3 respectively. More advanced stages and a smaller number of intestinal-type tumours of the distal third were observed over time. Five-year survival rates after R0 resection (2320 patients) did not change over time (overall: 56·6 and 51·2 per cent in periods 1 and 3; disease-free: 66·8 and 61·1 per cent respectively). Decreases in survival in more recent years were related particularly to more advanced stage, distal tumours and tumours in women. Multivariable analysis showed a lower probability of overall and disease-free survival in the most recent interval: hazard ratio 1·22 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·06 to 1·40) and 1·29 (1·06 to 1·58) respectively compared with period 1. Recurrent tumours were more frequently peritoneal rather than locoregional. Conclusion Overall and disease-free survival rates after R0 resection of GC were unchanged over time.

The aim of this multicenter longitudinal study was to evaluate the pattern of recurrence in patients submitted to potentially curative surgery for intestinal-type and diffuse-type gastric cancer. The study included 412 patients surgically treated at three Italian surgical departments, subdivided into 273 intestinal-type cases (group A) and 139 diffuse-type cases (group B). Recurrence of disease was found in 41% of group A cases and 65% of group B cases (p < 0.0001). The incidence of locoregional, hematogenous, and peritoneal recurrence was 20%, 19%, and 9% in group A, and 27%, 16%, and 34% in group B, respectively; the difference between the two groups was statistically significant for peritoneal recurrence (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified as prognostic variables lymph node status, depth of invasion, extent of lymphadenectomy, advanced age, and male gender in group A; depth of invasion, extent of lymphadenectomy, tumor size, and lymph node status, in group B. Whereas in group A the incidence of peritoneal recurrence was limited in all subgroups examined, in group B very high rates were observed in cases with infiltration of the serosa, involvement of second-level lymph nodes, or large tumor size. The notable difference in the risk of peritoneal recurrence between the intestinal and diffuse types should be taken into consideration in the therapeutic approach to gastric cancer.

The topic chosen by the Board of the Italian Society of Surgery for the 2013 annual Consensus Conference was gastric cancer. With this purpose, under the direction of 2 chairmen, 36 experts nominated by the Regional Societies of Surgery and by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) participated in an experts consensus exercise, preceded by a questionnaire and mainly held by telematic vote, in accordance with the rules of the Delphi method. The results of this Consensus Conference, presented to the 115th National Congress of the Italian Society of Surgery, and approved in plenary session, are reported in the present paper.

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4–6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain’s role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous.

Background The present study provides a snapshot of Italian patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer treated by surgery in Italian centers belonging to the Italian Research Group on Gastric Cancer. Prognostic factors affecting survival in such cohort of patients were evaluated with the final aim to identify patients who may benefit from radical intent surgery. Methods It is a multicentric retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database including demographics, clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up data of patients with gastric cancer and synchronous macroscopic peritoneal metastases. Patients were surgically treated from January 2005 to January 2017. We focused on patients with macroscopic peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) treated with upfront surgery in order to provide homogeneous evidences. Results Our results show that patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis cannot be considered all lost. Strictly selected cases (R0/R1 and P1 patients) could benefit from an aggressive surgical approach performing an extended lymphadenectomy and HIPEC treatment. Conclusion The main result of the study is that GC patients with limited peritoneal involvement can have a survival benefit from a surgery with “radical oncological intent”, that means extended lymphadenectomy and R0 resection. The retrospective nature of this study is an important bias, and for this reason, we have started a prospective multicentric study including Italian stage IV patients that hopefully will give us more answers.

Background: To validate a nodal regression system for gastric cancer and to verify its impact on prognosis. Methods: This is an ancillary study which included 47 patients of the GASTRODOC trial. The dedicated pathologists of each Institute were invited to revise all the lymph nodes included in the surgical specimens in order to classify the regression according to the grading system proposed by Tsekrekos et al. The association of the nodal regression system and the clinico-pathological characteristics and prognosis were investigated. Results: According to the classification of Tsekrekos et al., there were 19 (40.4%) patients with grade a, 14 (29.8%) with grade b and 14 (29.8%) with grade c nodal regression. This regression system showed significant statistical associations with pathological N status (p < 0.001), residual tumor classification (p = 0.003) and Becker regression system (p = 0.011). At multivariable analysis only Tsekrekos’ grading regression system was significantly associated with the PFS (HR 10.1, 95% CI 1.3–75.5; p = 0.025). Conclusions: The analyzed nodal regression system is significantly associated with Becker's regression system and it has a strong correlation with prognosis.

Introduction: To compare outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed during the learning curve (P1) with those after its completion (P2). Methods: In this retrospective study, all consecutive RG patients (n=92) performed between 2008 and 2018 were included. Primary outcome was conversion rate. Results: D2 lymphadenectomies were more common in P2 (41, 97.6%) than P1 (41, 82.0%) (p=0.019). Conversions were 11 (22%) in P1 versus 2 (4.8%) in P2 (p=0.006). Postoperative morbidity was comparable between the groups. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in P2. The only factor significantly associated with conversion was P2 (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.85; p=0.039). The 5-year overall survival in P1 was 79.6% versus 79.7% in P2 (p=0.373). Conclusions: The learning curve affected operative and postoperative outcomes: during the learning curve, conversion to open surgery was significantly more frequent, the number of D2 was higher and patients were discharged earlier.

BACKGROUND: Only a few, small, monocentric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared routine vs. no placement of a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube decompression (NG/NJT) in patients undergoing partial distal gastrectomy (PDG) for gastric cancer. However, to our knowledge, no multicenter prospective RCT has analyzed the role of decompression after both the Billroth II (BII) procedure and Roux-en-Y (RY) gastrojejunostomy. The aim of this study was to determine whether NG/NJT prevents the consequences of postoperative ileus after PDG for gastric cancer after both BII reconstruction and RY. METHODS: Two hundred seventy patients undergoing PDG for gastric cancer were randomly assigned NG/NJT placement (NG/NJT group) or not (no-NG/NJT group) with either Billroth II gastrojejunostomy or Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy. The patients were monitored for postoperative complications, mortality, and postoperative course. RESULTS: By January 2010 to June 2012, among 270 patients undergoing PDG for gastric cancer, 134 were randomly assigned to NG/NJT placement (NG/NJT group) and 136 to no decompression (no-NG/NJT group). Time to passage of flatus was significantly shorter in the NG/NJT group than in the no-NG/NJT group, but only after RY reconstruction (3.3 ± 1.5 vs. 4.3 ± 1.6 days, P < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative abdominal distention was significantly lower in the NG/NJT group than in the no-NG/NJT group after both BII and the RY procedure (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative mortality or morbidity, especially anastomotic leakage or intra-abdominal sepsis, were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Routine placement of an NG/NJT after BII and RY PDG is not necessary in elective surgery for gastric cancer.

Background: The prognostic value of T subclassification in patients with gastric carcinoma has been just implemented in the new AJCC TNM staging system, which has reclassified T2a and T2b into T2 and T3 tumors, respectively. The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic significance of the new T categorization within the frame of the latest TNM staging system. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 686 T2/T3 patients among 2155 subjects who underwent radical resection for gastric carcinoma at six Italian centers from 1988 through 2006. Results: Upon multivariate analysis, the new T categories, extent of lymph node dissection (D) and patient's age were retained by the survival model as independent prognostic factors. In particular, the death risk for patients with T3 tumors was higher than that of patients with T2 tumors (HR: 1.42, P = 0.005). Among the 686 patients previously classified as having T2 tumors, patients with T2 and T3 disease were 270 (39.4%) and 416 (60.6%), respectively. After a median follow-up of 55 months, the 5-year overall survival rates were 67.3% and 52.3% for patients with T2 and T3 tumors, respectively (P < 0.001). The survival advantage for the T2 as compared to T3 category was maintained even when N0 and N+ patients were separately considered (P = 0.0154 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Our data confirm the prognostic difference between the newly proposed T2 and T3 categories, which should be implemented in the routine clinical practice to improve risk stratification of patients with gastric cancer.

Background Gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer, with no age- or comorbidity-related limitations. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of curative gastrectomy with extended nodal dissection, verifying survival in elderly and highly co-morbid patients. Methods In a retrospective multicenter study, we examined 1322 non-metastatic gastric-cancer patients that underwent curative gastrectomy with D2 versus D1 lymphadenectomy from January 2000 to December 2009. Postoperative complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) according to age and the Charlson Comorbidity Score were analyzed in relation to the extent of lymphadenectomy. Results Postoperative morbidity was 30.4%. Complications were more frequent in highly co-morbid elderly patients, and, although general morbidity rates after D2 and D1 lymphadenectomy were similar (29.9% and 33.2%, respectively), they increased following D2 in highly co-morbid elderly patients (39.6%). D2-lymphadenectomy significantly improved 5-year OS and DSS (48.0% vs. 37.6% in D1, pÂ

Background: Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) is a severe complication of gastrectomy. Although nonsurgical therapy is preferred, surgery is still mandatory in one third of DSF patients. The aim of this article is to analyze the surgical management of DSF and factors related to its outcome. Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study using data from January 1990 to November 2011 in 16 Italian surgery centers. We collected 8,268 elective gastrectomies for malignancies, 7,987 by the laparotomic and 281 by the laparoscopic approach. Two hundred five patients developed a DSF, 75 of whom underwent surgery for DSF. We analyzed mortality and DSF healing time as well as the impact of clinical, oncological, and surgical characteristics. Results: The laparoscopic approach increased the risk of DSF development (odds ratio 5.6, 95% confidence interval 2.7–10.6, P&nbsp

BACKGROUND: Duodenal fistula (DF) after gastrectomy continues to be a life-threatening problem. We performed a retrospective multicenter study analyzing the characteristics of DF after elective gastrectomy for malignant disease. METHODS: Three thousand seven hundred eighty-five patients who had undergone gastrectomy with duodenal stump in 11 Italian surgical units were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight DFs occurred, with a median frequency of 1.6% and a mortality rate of 16%. Complications were mainly septic but fistulas or bleeding of surrounding organs accounted for about 30%. Reoperation was performed in 40% of patients. We observed a correlation between mortality and age (hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI 1.00-1.20) and serum albumin (hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.99). The appearance of further complications was associated with reoperation (P < 0.001) and death (P = 0.054), while the preservation of oral feeding was related to DF healing (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This paper represents the largest series ever published on DF and shows that its features have changed in the last 20 years. DF alone no longer leads to death and some complications observed in the past have disappeared, while new ones are emerging. Nowadays, medical therapy is preferred and surgery is indicated only in cases of abdominal sepsis or bleeding.

Aims The proportion between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (N-ratio) has been proposed as an independent prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer. In the present work we validated the reliability of N-ratio in a large, multicenter series. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1853 patients who underwent radical resection for gastric carcinoma. Survival of patients with >15 (Group-1, n = 1421) and those with ≤15 (Group-2, n = 432) lymph nodes examined was separately analyzed in order to evaluate the influence of lymph node dissection on disease staging. N-ratio categories (N-ratio 0, 0%; N-ratio 1, 1–9%; N-ratio 2, 10–25%; N-ratio 3, >25%) were determined by the best cut-off approach. Results At multivariate analysis, N-ratio (but not TNM N-category) was retained as an independent prognostic factor both in Group-1 and Group-2 (HR for N-ratio 1, N-ratio 2 and N-ratio 3 = 1.67, 2.96 and 6.59, and 1.56, 2.68 and 4.28, respectively). After a median follow-up of 45.5 months, the 5-year overall survival rates of TNM N0, N1 and N2 patients were significantly different in Group-1 vs Group-2. This was not the case when adopting the N-ratio classification, suggesting that a low number of excised lymph nodes can lead to patients being understaged using the N-category, but not N-ratio. Moreover, N-ratio identified subsets of patients with significantly different survival rates within TNM N1 and N2 categories in both groups. Conclusions N-ratio is a simple and reproducible prognostic tool that can stratify patients with gastric cancer, including those cases with limited lymph node dissection. These data support the rationale to propose the implementation of N-ratio into the current TNM staging system.

Purpose: To investigate whether the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (N ratio) is a better prognostic factor as compared with traditional staging systems in patients with gastric cancer regardless of the extension of lymph node dissection. Patients & Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1853 patients who underwent radical resection for gastric carcinoma at 6 Italian centers. Patients with >15 (group 1, n = 1421) and those with 25%) were determined by the best cut-off approach. Results: After a median follow-up of 45.5 months (range, 4-182 months), the 5-year overall survival of N0, N1, and N2 patients of group 1 versus group 2 was 83.4% versus 74.2% (P = 0.0026), 54.3% versus 44.3% (P = 0.018), and 32.7% versus 14.7% (P = 0.004), respectively, suggesting that a low number of excised lymph nodes can lead to the understaging of patients. N ratio identified subsets of patients with significantly different survival rates within NI and N2 stages in both groups. At multivariate analysis, the N ratio (but not N stage) was retained as an independent prognostic factor both in group I and group 2 (HR for N ratio 1, N ratio 2, and N ratio 3 = 1.67, 2.96, and 6.59, and 1.56, 2.68, and 4.28, respectively). In our series, the implementation of N ratio led to the identification of subgroups of patients prognostically more homogeneous than those classified by the TNM system. Conclusion: N ratio is a simple and reproducible prognostic tool that can stratify patients with gastric cancer also in case of limited lymph node dissection. These data may represent the rational for improving the prognostic power of current UICC TNM staging system and ultimately the selection of patients who may most benefit from adjuvant treatments.