Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies

European Journal of Medical Research volume 28, Article number: 224 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in advanced gastric cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy represent a controversial issue. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in this subset of patients.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were comprehensively searched up to May 2023. The short-term and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG in advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were always assessed using random-effects model. The prospective protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022359126).

Results

Eighteen studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies) involving 2096 patients were included. In total, 933 patients were treated with LG and 1163 patients were treated with OG. In perioperative outcomes, LG was associated with less estimated blood loss (MD = − 65.15; P < 0.0001), faster time to flatus (MD = − 0.56; P < 0.0001) and liquid intake (MD = − 0.42; P = 0.02), reduced hospital stay (MD = − 2.26; P < 0.0001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.70; P = 0.002) and lower minor complication rate (OR = 0.69; P = 0.006), while longer operative time (MD = 25.98; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 resection rate, retrieved lymph nodes, time to remove gastric tube and drainage tube, major complications and other specific complications. In survival outcomes, LG and OG were not significantly different in overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence-free survival.

Conclusion

LG can be a safe and feasible technique for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to further validate the results of our study.

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [1, 2]. For patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC), radical gastrectomy combined with D2 lymphadenectomy has been regarded as the only promising technique for curing the disease in both eastern and western countries [3]. In addition, the implementation of perioperative multi-mode therapy can also improve the oncological outcomes of patients [4]. Currently, several large-scale clinical trials such as MAGIC [5], FLOT4 [6], RESONANCE [7] and RESOLVE [8] have confirmed that neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) combined with surgical resection can improve the chances of R0 resection, eliminating possible micro-metastases and improve long-term survival relative to upfront surgery [9, 10]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends that NAT should be administered to all AGC patients, and it has been included in the standardized multi-mode treatment of AGC in many countries around the world [11].

Since Kitano et al. [12] first reported the application of laparoscopic technique for distal gastrectomy (LG) in 1994, LG has emerged as a standard surgical approach for the treatment of early GC due to the comparable surgical and long-term results relative to open gastrectomy (OG). In recent years, three large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from JLSSG0901 [13], KLASS-02 [14] and CLASS-01 [15] have further extended the indications of LG to AGC. However, in the context of NAT, therapy-induced tissue edema and fibrosis, vascular fragility, and normal anatomic disappearance pose new challenges to the application of laparoscopic technique in those patients [16, 17]. Laparoscopic technique has the advantages of a magnified surgical field and good maneuverability. A previous meta-analysis by Liao et al. [18] demonstrated that patients in the LG group had a quasi-significantly less complication rate and faster time to flatus than patients in the OG group, while other clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. Nevertheless, this meta-analysis included 6 studies with only 704 patients available, making many of the findings less statistically powerful. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether laparoscopic techniques can be used as an alternative to open surgery in AGC patients receiving NAT.

In the last 2 years, a growing body of additional research has been addressed to further explore the application value of LG in neoadjuvant gastric cancer patients. Therefore, based on existing evidence, we performed an updated meta-analysis to investigate the perioperative and survival outcomes of LG relative to OG in AGC patients following NAT.

Methods

Our meta-analysis was accomplished in line with the requirements from PRISMA statement, to identify studies comparing the perioperative and long-term outcomes of LG vs. OG for AGC patients who underwent NAT. The prospective protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022359126).

Search strategy

Electronic datasets including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically examined for relevant studies until to May 31, 2023. The following search strategy was used to perform the study retrieval: (“open” [Title/Abstract] OR “laparotomy” [Title/Abstract]) AND (“laparoscopic” [Title/Abstract] OR “laparoscopy” [Title/Abstract]) AND (“neoadjuvant” [Title/Abstract] OR “preoperative” [Title/Abstract] OR “perioperative” [Title/Abstract]) AND (“gastric cancer” [Title/Abstract] OR “stomach cancer” [Title/Abstract] OR “stomach neoplasm” [Title/Abstract]). During the search process, language restrictions were not applied. Moreover, references to previously published reviews and included studies were also manually searched for additional reports. The literature search was conducted by two investigators independently (HY-P and XF-C).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were formulated through the PICOS approach [19] as follows. P: AGC patients who underwent NAT; I: laparoscopic gastrectomy; C: open gastrectomy; O: perioperative and survival outcomes; S: comparative studies including RCTs, cohort studies and case-controlled studies.

The exclusion criteria were studies (1) reported as case reports, conferences, reviews, and abstracts; (2) with mixed cancers; (3) with overlapping data.

Data extraction

A standardized EXCEL form was designed for data extraction. Two independent reviewers (HY-P and XF-C) performed this procedure and cross-checked all the results. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (H S). The following data from each study were extracted and recorded: first author, publication year, study interval, country, study design and sample size, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, neoadjuvant regimen, tumor size, gastrectomy extent, follow-up time, perioperative outcomes and survival outcomes.

Outcome of interest and definitions

Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes between the LG and OG groups were assessed in this study. Perioperative outcomes included (1) intraoperative and postoperative recovery outcomes: operative time, estimated blood loss, proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first liquid intake, time to remove gastric tube, time to remove drainage tube, and postoperative hospital stay; and (2) postoperative complications which occurred during hospitalization or within 30 days after gastrectomy were defined and graded by Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification system [20], including total complications (CD I-V), minor complications (CD I-II), major complications (CD III-V), anastomotic leakage, pancreatic complications, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical site infection, lymphatic leakage, pulmonary infection and Ileus. Long-term survival outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Quality assessment

In terms of the literature quality of included studies, the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool (ROB 2.0) [21] were utilized to evaluate the risk of bias for included RCTs, which consists of five domains: randomization process, deviations from intended intervention, missing data, outcome measurement and selection of reported result. While for cohort studies, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I) [22] was applied, which consists of seven domains: confounding factors, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviation from intended interventions, missing data, outcome measurement and selection of the reported result.

Statistical analysis

Dichotomous variables, continuous variables, and survival outcomes were analyzed with using the odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. For studies reporting continuous variables as median with range or inter-quartile range, we converted data into mean with standard deviation (SD) according to the approach described by McGrath et al. [23]. For studies that HRs with 95% CIs were not provided, we extracted data from survival curves and calculated them following the methods developed by Tierney et al. [24]. Heterogeneities of pooled outcomes were assessed using I2 statistic [25]. A random-effects model was always performed, due to common clinical and conceptual variance across included studies. In addition, meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to investigate the source of heterogeneity and robustness of pooled results. Begg’s funnel plots were applied to test potential publication bias of pooled outcomes when there were at least ten studies included. The pooled results were considered statistically significant at two tailed P < 0.05. Review Manager Software, version 5.3 (Cochrane, London, UK) and Stata, version 12.0 (Statacorp, College Station, TX) were used to perform all statistical analyses.

Results

Study characteristics and risk of bias

As shown in Fig. 1, a total of 1576 potential studies were yielded after systematically searching. Through careful title, abstract and full text assessment, 2 RCTs [26, 27] and 16 cohort studies [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] were ultimately enrolled in this study. As shown in Table 1, a total of 2096 patients (933 in the LG group and 1163 in the OG group) were included in the present study. These studies were published between 2014 and 2023, with a sample size ranging from 44 to 270. Of these studies, 15 originated in China and another 3 were from Japan, Egypt and Europe. The median follow-up time of included studies ranged from 31 to 69 months. For neoadjuvant therapy, most studies used chemotherapy as a preoperative treatment and a few studies [29, 31, 37, 42] also included targeted therapy and concurrent chemoradiation in the preoperative treatment strategy. As for the baseline characteristics including age, sex, ASA score, BMI, tumor size and gastrectomy extent between the two groups, 15 studies did not report statistically significant differences in these variables. However, 2 studies were not matched according to tumor size, where the tumor size in the LG group was smaller in the study by Ge et al. [30], but larger in the study by Li et al. [35]. Besides, one study by Wu et al. [40] showed a difference in gastrectomy extent, with the total gastrectomy being larger on average in the OG group (Table 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The PRISMA Flowchart of study selection

Full size image
Table 1 Basic information of included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Clinicopathologic features of included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias

The 2 RCTs were evaluated using the ROB 2.0 tool, and both were deemed to be at high risk in the domain of the outcome measurement due to the surgical nature of these trials, which made it impossible to blind participants and investigators to the procedure (Fig. 2A). The 16 cohort studies were evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool, and 7 of them were moderate risk in the overall risk of bias due to 6 of them had a moderate risk in the domain of confounding factors and 4 of them had a moderate risk in the domain of missing data (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Bias risk summary of each element in the included randomized controlled trials (A) and cohort studies (B)

Full size image

Meta-analysis of outcomes

Intraoperative and recovery outcomes

As shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3, patients in the LG group had a significantly less estimated blood loss (MD = − 65.15; 95% CI − 91.02 to − 39.27; P < 0.0001; I2 = 96%) but longer operative time (MD = 25.98; 95% CI 18.42–33.53; P < 0.00001; I2 = 78%) than the OG group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = − 0.16; 95% CI − 1.43 to 1.10; P = 0.80; I2 = 55%), proximal margin (MD = − 0.20; 95% CI − 0.65 to 0.25; P = 0.38; I2 = 0%), distal margin (MD = − 0.26; 95% CI − 0.60 to 0.08; P = 0.13; I2 = 0%) and R1/R2 rate (OR = 1.47; 95% CI 0.67–3.20; P = 0.34; I2 = 0%). In postoperative recovery, patients in the LG group had a shorter length of hospital stay (MD = − 2.26; 95% CI -3.60 to − 0.92; P < 0.0001; I2 = 97%), time to first flatus (MD = − 0.56; 95% CI − 0.77 to − 0.35; P < 0.0001; I2 = 66%) and time to first liquid intake (MD = − 0.42; 95% CI − 0.76 to − 0.08; P = 0.02; I2 = 53%) than those in the OG group. While the time to pull gastric tube (MD = − 0.73; 95% CI − 2.17 to 0.72; P = 0.32; I2 = 69%) and drainage tube (MD = − 0.69; 95% CI − 1.46 to 0.08; P = 0.08; I2 = 0%) were not significant different between the two groups.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot assessing intraoperative and recovery outcomes between the LG and OG groups. A Operative time; B estimated blood loss; C proximal margin; D distal margin; E R1/R2 resection rate; F number of retrieved lymph nodes; G. time to first flatus; H time to first liquid intake; I time to remove gastric tube; J time to remove drainage tube and K postoperative hospital stay

Full size image
Table 3 Results of the meta-analysis of intraoperative and recovery outcomes
Full size table

Postoperative complications

As shown in Fig. 4 and Table 4, a lower overall postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.56–0.88; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%) and a lower minor complication rate (OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.90; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%) were observed in the LG group. While for major complications, there was no significant difference observed between the two groups (OR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.55–1.47; P = 0.67; I2 = 16%). In terms of specific postoperative complications, we found that the incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.44–1.26; P = 0.27; I2 = 0%), pancreatic complications (OR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.21–1.94; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.45–1.84; P = 0.80; I2 = 0%), intra-abdominal bleeding (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.41–1.64; P = 0.58; I2 = 0%), lymphatic leakage (OR = 1.26; 95% CI 0.46–3.47; P = 0.66; I2 = 0%), ileus (OR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.27–2.19; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.35–1.57; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%) and pulmonary infection (OR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.48–1.15; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%) were all comparable between the two groups.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot assessing postoperative complications between the LG and OG groups. A Overall complications; B minor complications; C major complications; D anastomotic leakage; E pancreatic complications; F intra-abdominal hemorrhage; G intra-abdominal abscess; H surgical site infection; I lymphatic leakage; J pulmonary infection; and K Ileus

Full size image
Table 4 Results of the meta-analysis of postoperative complications
Full size table

Long-term outcomes

As shown in Fig. 5 and Table 5, the pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the LG and OG groups in terms of OS (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.72–1.05; P = 0.16; I2 = 0%). Consistently, the 1-year OS rate (OR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.40–3.65; P = 0.73; I2 = 50%), 3-year OS rate (OR = 1.40; 95% CI 0.87–2.26; P = 0.17; I2 = 56%) and 5-year OS rate (OR = 1.40; 95% CI 0.85–2.31; P = 0.19; I2 = 19%) were also comparable between the two groups. Similarly, the DFS was also comparable between the two groups (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.76–1.40; P = 0.84; I2 = 0%). And the 1-year DFS rate (OR = 2.06; 95% CI 0.77–5.52; P = 0.15), 3-year DFS rate (OR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.46–2.45; P = 0.90; I2 = 70%) and 5-year DFS rate (OR = 1.25; 95% CI 0.72–2.16; P = 0.42; I2 = 0%) were all comparable between the two groups. In addition, the pooled analysis revealed that the RFS was not significantly different between the two groups (HR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.85–1.62; P = 0.28; I2 = 0%), with comparable 3-year RFS rate (OR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.45–1.62; P = 0.62).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot assessing long-term survival outcomes between the LG and OG groups. A OS; B DFS; C RFS; D 1-year OS rate; E 3-year OS rate; F 5-year OS rate; G 1-year DFS rate; H 3-year DFS rate; and I 5-year DFS rate

Full size image
Table 5 Results of the meta-analysis of long-term survival outcomes
Full size table

Meta-regression and subgroup analyses

Since high heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analyses, especially in operative time, estimated blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to first liquid intake and postoperative hospital stay, multivariate meta-regression analyses based on publication year (≥ 2020 vs. < 2020), county (China vs. Others), study design (RCT/PSM cohort vs. Others), sample size (> 100 vs. ≤ 100), the extent of gastrectomy (total gastrectomy vs. others) and baseline features (matched vs. unmatched) were performed. As shown in Additional file 1: Table S1, sample size was the major source of heterogeneity of retrieved lymph nodes (P = 0.022), while study design (P = 0.035) and baseline features (P = 0.009) were the major source of heterogeneity of postoperative hospital stay.

Furthermore, subgroup analyses stratified by those covariates were performed to investigate the discrepant treatment effect of different subsets. As shown in Additional file 1: Figs. S1–6, the findings of all subgroup analyses were consistent with the results of subgroup analyses and suggested that these perioperative outcomes in the LG group were not inferior to those in the OG group, except that the LG group showed a lower rate of retrieved lymph nodes in the subset with a sample size of no more than 100 (MD = − 1.94; 95% CI − 3.32 to − 0.56; P = 0.006; I2 = 14%).

Publication bias

For pooled outcomes with at least ten studies included, the Begg’s funnel plot was applied to assess the potential publication bias. As shown in Tables 3, 4, 5 and Additional file 1: Fig. S7, all of the pooled outcomes showed no significant risk of publication bias, with all p-values greater than 0.05.

Discussion

In clinical practice, laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted as an alternative to open gastrectomy for AGC in both Eastern and Western countries due to its relatively better short-term outcomes without compromising long-term outcomes. [44,45,46]. Nowadays, the application of NAT to AGC patients has rapidly increased owing to its potential oncological benefits [5, 28, 31]. Nevertheless, before applying LG as the standard treatment option for AGC patients receiving NAT, much more evidence is required to confirm the true benefits of LG over OG, thereby aiding surgical decision-making.

In the present meta-analysis, we enrolled 18 studies with 2096 patients and demonstrated that LG offers better perioperative outcomes and comparable survival results compared to OG. In detail, the present study highlighted less estimated blood loss, faster time to liquid intake, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer minor complication rate, but longer operative time in the LG group, except for a reduced overall complication rate and faster time to flatus. Nonetheless, the previous meta-analysis [18] failed to detect these differences due to the limited number of studies included. Also, benefiting from a larger sample size, informative meta-regression and subgroup analyses can be further performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity and robustness of these pooled results with significant heterogeneities. As shown in Additional file 1: Figs. S1–S6, nearly all of those subset analyses revealed that these perioperative outcomes in the LG group were not inferior to those in the OG group. In addition, Begg’s tests showed no significant risk of bias in those pooled results, which further convincing us of the feasibility of LG in AGC patients following NAT.

Surveying the surgical parameters, the estimated blood loss in the LG group was significantly less than that in the OG group. This result may be related to the fine dissection and meticulous hemostasis of edematous and fibrotic tissue under a magnified surgical view by advanced laparoscopic instruments [26]. In addition, the LG group showed a faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, as indicated by the earlier onset of flatus and oral intake. Time to pull gastric tube and drainage tube, however, was similar between the two groups. Moreover, LG was also associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay, which may be a combined result of less blood loss, faster recovery of bowel function and lower postoperative complication rate. On the other hand, a longer operative time was observed in the LG group. Numerous studies have shown that the prolonged operative time is closely associated with the technical complexity as well as a relatively long learning curve of laparoscopic surgery [47], which may be particularly true in the context of NAT. With the popularization of laparoscopic technique and the improvement of surgical proficiency of surgeons, the operative time is expected to be shortened in future clinical practice.

Regarding postoperative morbidity, LG was related to a lower overall complication rate and a lower minor complication rate. These results may be related to the inherent benefit of laparoscopy in terms of better exposure and visual magnification, which allows delicate manipulation of the organs, vessels and nerves during LG [48]. In addition, the use of sophisticated equipment such as Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure during LG may facilitate decreasing the surgery damage to normal tissues, therefore reducing morbidity [49]. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that in our pooled result, the minimally invasive nature of LG had less impact on reducing major complications, because accumulating reports have suggested that the occurrence of major complications may be mainly related to the proficiency of the surgeons as well as the surgical devices, rather than the surgical approach [48, 50]. In terms of specific complications, although there were no significant differences between the two groups found in our study, lower odds ratios for most complications were observed in the LG group, such as pulmonary infection. Certainly, part of the reason for this evidence can be explained by the minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic approach, which allows minor surgical incision length and less immune-suppression [48]. Besides, the minor tension sutures can reduce postoperative pain, thereby improving the patient’s respiratory dynamics and leading to fewer pulmonary infection [51].

With respect to the evaluation of oncological adequacy, our results demonstrated that LG was equal to OG in the proximal margin, distal margin, R1/R2 resection rate and number of harvested lymph nodes. In particular, retrieving enough lymph nodes for pathological examination and achieving identical extent of lymphadenectomy to OG have been regarded as the most essential index for assessing the feasibility of LG in gastric cancer patients [52,53,54]. The 8th AJCC guideline recommends that at least 16 lymph nodes are required for GC patients to ensure accurate N staging, regardless of receiving NAT or not [11]. In addition, a recent study involving 4337 cases suggested that the retrieval of at least 23 lymph nodes could provide a better survival for patients receiving NAT [55]. In our study, the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in the LG and OG groups was 31.84 and 31.87, indicating that LG is as oncologically adequate as OG in patients undergoing NAT. Consistently, the OS, DFS and RFS rates between the two approaches were unsurprisingly comparable. Therefore, once the basic principles of negative margins and adequate lymphadenectomy have been secured, the survival results are largely determined by the biological characteristics of the tumor itself rather than by the surgical approach [47].

This meta-analysis has several limitations. First, among included studies, there were only 2 RCTs and most of them were retrospective in nature, which may increase the risk of selective bias. Second, the quality of the included studies varied. Even though those pooled results were of low heterogeneities or remained consistent in the subgroup of high-quality studies (RCTs and propensity-score matched studies), this may have some effect on the strength of evidence of our study. Third, the preoperative treatment regimens varied a lot among the included studies. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the perioperative and survival outcome analyses.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that LG is a safe and feasible technique for AGC patients who received NAT in terms of superior short-term and comparable long-term results. Nevertheless, high-quality multicenter RCTs are warranted to validate our findings.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

GC:

Gastric cancer

NAT:

Neoadjuvant treatment

AGC:

Advanced gastric cancer

LG:

Laparoscopic gastrectomy

OG:

Open gastrectomy

BMI:

Body mass index

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists classification

OS:

Overall survival

DFS:

Disease-free survival

RFS:

Recurrence-free survival

CD:

Clavien–Dindo

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

RoB 2.0:

Risk-of-Bias 2.0

ROBINS-I:

Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions

OR:

Odds ratio

MD:

Mean difference

HR:

Hazard ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pang H, Zhang W, Liang X, et al. Prognostic Score System using preoperative inflammatory, nutritional and tumor markers to predict prognosis for gastric cancer: a two-center cohort study. Adv Ther. 2021;38(9):4917–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marano L, D’Ignazio A, Cammillini F, et al. Comparison between 7th and 8th edition of AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: old problems and new perspectives. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Li CC, Yeh YS, Chen YC, et al. Surgical efficacy and safety of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy. J Oncol. 2022;2022:3719241.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang X, Li S, Sun Y, et al. The protocol of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled phase III study evaluating different cycles of oxaliplatin combined with S-1 (SOX) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: RESONANCE-II trial. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Liang H, Li Z, et al. Perioperative or postoperative adjuvant oxaliplatin with S-1 versus adjuvant oxaliplatin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing D2 gastrectomy (RESOLVE): an open-label, superiority and non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1081–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miao ZF, Liu XY, Wang ZN, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Fong C, Johnston E, Starling N. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy approaches to gastric cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2022;23:1247–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ajani JA, D’Amico TA, Bentrem DJ, et al. Gastric cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:167–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kitano S, Iso Y, Moriyama M, Sugimachi K. Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4:146–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Inaki N, Etoh T, Ohyama T, et al. A multi-institutional, prospective, Phase II feasibility study of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer (JLSSG0901). World J Surg. 2015;39:2734–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Park YK, et al. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: the KLASS-02-RCT randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38: Jco2001210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:1983–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Coccolini F, Nardi M, Montori G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric and esophago-gastric cancer. Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Surg. 2018;51:120–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reddavid R, Sofia S, Chiaro P, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Is it a must or a fake? World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:274–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Liao XL, Liang XW, Pang HY, et al. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11: 704244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. Population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emerg Med J. 2020;37:387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355: i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. McGrath S, Zhao X, Steele R, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29(9):2520–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, et al. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Li Z, Shan F, Ying X, et al. Assessment of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1093–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Wielen N, Straatman J, Daams F, et al. Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24:258–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cui H, Zhang KC, Cao B, et al. Short and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;14:452–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Fujisaki M, Mitsumori N, Shinohara T, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:1682–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ge R, Liu K, Zhang W, et al. The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer. J Oncol. 2022;2022:9511066.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hu HT, Ma FH, Xiong JP, et al. Laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: a propensity score matching analysis. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;14:161–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hu MX, Tian; Li, Tengteng; Wang, Kai, Fu, Haixiao; Zhang, Xuan; Fu, Wei. Comparison of safety and short-term efficacy between laparoscopy and laparotomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. 2022; 49: D.

  33. Jingxia Shen HK, Xuhui Liu, Liyun Ling, Bin Wei, Huisheng Wang. Clinical efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with laparoscopy in the treatment of proximal advanced gastric cancer. 2020.

  34. Khaled I, Priego P, Soliman H, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective multicenter study. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19:206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Li Z, Shan F, Wang Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: safety and short-term oncologic results. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4265–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang JH, Xiaopeng; Su, Lin; Li, Hongtao; Yu, Jianping; Li, Sandang; Liu, Hongbin. Comparison of the recent treatment effect between laparoscopic and open surgery following neoadjuvant chemortherapy for advanced gastric cancer. 2014; 22.

  37. Wang N, Zhou A, Jin J, et al. Open vs. laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: short-term and long-term survival outcomes. Oncol Lett. 2020;20:861–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang Y. Clinical study of platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with laparoscopic resection in the treatment of primary gastric cancer. 2016.

  39. Wang Y, Lei X, Liu Z, et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a cohort study using the propensity score matching method. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;12:237–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Wu S. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopy and laparotomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer. Academic Dissertation 2022.

  41. Xi HQ, Zhang KC, Li JY, et al. Comparison of perioperative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy after preoperative chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Indian J Surg. 2020;82:42–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zheng HL, Shen LL, Xu BB, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical total gastrectomy for upper-middle gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a study of real-world data. Surg Endosc. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10084-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhong H, Liu X, Tian Y, et al. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10052-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pang HY, Zhao LY, Zhang ZQ, et al. Comparisons of perioperative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406:641–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. van der Veen A, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (LOGICA): a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:978–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang C, Liu H, Hu Y, et al. Laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: five-year outcomes from the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2022;157:9–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chen X, Feng X, Wang M, Yao X. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46:1998–2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Caruso S, Giudicissi R, Mariatti M, et al. Laparoscopic vs. open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective case-control study. Curr Oncol. 2022;29:1840–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Zeng YK, Yang ZL, Peng JS, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted versus open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: evidence from randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Ann Surg. 2012;256:39–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen K, Xu XW, Zhang RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopy-assisted and open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:5365–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Best LM, Mughal M, Gurusamy KS. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3: Cd01389.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sato H, Shimada M, Kurita N, et al. Comparison of long-term prognosis of laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and conventional open gastrectomy with special reference to D2 lymph node dissection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2240–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Park YK, Yoon HM, Kim YW, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted versus Open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: results from a randomized phase II multicenter clinical trial (COACT 1001). Ann Surg. 2018;267:638–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Viñuela EF, Gonen M, Brennan MF, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies. Ann Surg. 2012;255:446–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shannon AB, Straker RJ 3rd, Keele L, et al. Lymph node evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:1242–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by Chongqing Technology innovation and Application Development Special general project (cstc2019jscx-msxmX0194) and Research Institutions Performance Incentive Guidance Special Fund (cstc2022jxjl0234).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hua-Yang Pang and Xiu-Feng Chen are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China

    Hua-Yang Pang, Xiu-Feng Chen, Li-Hui Chen, Meng-Hua Yan, Zhi-Xiong Chen & Hao Sun

  2. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Translational Research for Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Treatment, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China

    Hua-Yang Pang

Authors
  1. Hua-Yang Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiu-Feng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li-Hui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meng-Hua Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhi-Xiong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HY-P wrote the manuscript. HY-P, XF-C and LH-C performed the data search and data analysis. HY-P and XF-C prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript. HS approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hao Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Additional Tables and Figures.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pang, HY., Chen, XF., Chen, LH. et al. Comparisons of perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: an updated pooled analysis of eighteen studies. Eur J Med Res 28, 224 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01197-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01197-1

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us