Minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A pooled analysis of two European randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques have shown better short term and similar oncological outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer in Asian countries. It remains unknown whether these outcomes can be extrapolated to Western countries, where patients often present with advanced gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A pooled analysis of two Western randomized controlled trials (STOMACH and LOGICA trial) comparing minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) and open gastrectomy (OG) in advanced gastric cancer was performed. Postoperative recovery (complications, mortality, hospital stay), oncological outcomes (lymph node yield, radical resection rate, 1-year survival), and quality of life was assessed. Results: Three hundred and twenty-one patients were included from both trials. Of these, 162 patients (50.5%) were allocated to MIG and 159 patients (49.5%) to OG. A significant difference was seen in blood loss in favor of MIG (150 vs. 260 mL, p < 0.001), whereas duration of surgery was in favor of OG (180 vs. 228.5 min, p = 0.005). Postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes and quality of life were similar between both groups. Conclusion: MIG showed no difference to OG regarding postoperative recovery, oncological outcomes or quality of life, and is therefore a safe alternative to OG in patients with advanced gastric cancer.