Reese W Randle1, Douglas S Swords1, Edward A Levine1, Nora F Fino2, Malcolm H Squires3, George Poultsides4, Ryan C Fields5, Mark Bloomston6, Sharon M Weber7, Timothy M Pawlik8, Linda X Jin5, Gaya Spolverato8, Carl Schmidt6, David Worhunsky4, Clifford S Cho7, Shishir K Maithel3, Konstantinos I Votanopoulos1. 1. Surgical Oncology Service, Department of Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. 5. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 6. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Division of Surgical Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma is debated. We compared gastrectomy outcomes following limited (D1) or extended (D2) lymphadenectomy. METHODS: Using the multi-institutional US Gastric Cancer Collaborative database, we reviewed the morbidity, mortality, recurrence, and overall survival (OS) of patients receiving D1 or D2 lymphadenectomies. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2012, 266 and 461 patients received a D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, respectively. ASA class, mean number of comorbidities, grade, and stage were similar between groups. While major morbidity was similar (P = 0.85), mortality was worse for those receiving a D1 lymphadenectomy (4.9% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.004). D2 lymphadenectomy was associated with improved median OS in stage I (4.7 years for D1 vs. not reached for D2, P = 0.003), stage II (3.6 years for D1 vs. 6.3 for D2, P = 0.42), and stage III patients (1.3 years for D1 vs. 2.1 for D2, P = 0.01). After adjusting for predictors of OS, D2 lymphadenectomy remained a significant predictor of improved survival (HR 1.5, 95%CI 1.1-2.0, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: D2 lymphadenectomy can be performed without increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Additionally, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival especially in early stages, and should be considered for gastric adenocarcinoma patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:750-755.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma is debated. We compared gastrectomy outcomes following limited (D1) or extended (D2) lymphadenectomy. METHODS: Using the multi-institutional US Gastric Cancer Collaborative database, we reviewed the morbidity, mortality, recurrence, and overall survival (OS) of patients receiving D1 or D2 lymphadenectomies. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2012, 266 and 461 patients received a D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, respectively. ASA class, mean number of comorbidities, grade, and stage were similar between groups. While major morbidity was similar (P = 0.85), mortality was worse for those receiving a D1 lymphadenectomy (4.9% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.004). D2 lymphadenectomy was associated with improved median OS in stage I (4.7 years for D1 vs. not reached for D2, P = 0.003), stage II (3.6 years for D1 vs. 6.3 for D2, P = 0.42), and stage III patients (1.3 years for D1 vs. 2.1 for D2, P = 0.01). After adjusting for predictors of OS, D2 lymphadenectomy remained a significant predictor of improved survival (HR 1.5, 95%CI 1.1-2.0, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: D2 lymphadenectomy can be performed without increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Additionally, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival especially in early stages, and should be considered for gastric adenocarcinomapatients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:750-755.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Melissa M Center; Carol DeSantis; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David L Smith; Linda S Elting; Peter A Learn; Chandrajit P Raut; Paul F Mansfield Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: H H Hartgrink; C J H van de Velde; H Putter; J J Bonenkamp; E Klein Kranenbarg; I Songun; K Welvaart; J H J M van Krieken; S Meijer; J T M Plukker; P J van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; J J B van Lanschot; C W Taat; P W de Graaf; M F von Meyenfeldt; H Tilanus; M Sasako Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-04-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Cuschieri; S Weeden; J Fielding; J Bancewicz; J Craven; V Joypaul; M Sydes; P Fayers Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alexandre Gosselin-Tardif; Jessica Lie; Ioana Nicolau; Juan Carlos Molina; Jonathan Cools-Lartigue; Liane Feldman; Jonathan Spicer; Carmen Mueller; Lorenzo Ferri Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Yinin Hu; Timothy L McMurry; Bernadette Goudreau; Katie M Leick; Tri M Le; Victor M Zaydfudim Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Yinin Hu; Elvira L Vos; Raymond E Baser; Mark A Schattner; Makoto Nishimura; Daniel G Coit; Vivian E Strong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 5.344