Аre Multivisceral Resections for Gastric Cancer Acceptable: Experience from a High Volume Center and Extended Literature Review?

Abstract

Introduction Multivisceral resections (MVRs) in gastric cancer are potentially curable in selected patients in whom clear resection margins are possible. However, there are still uncertain data on their feasibility and safety considering short- and long-term results. The study compares survival, morbidity, mortality, and other secondary outcomes between standard and MVRs for gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods A monocentric retrospective study in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, covering 2004 to 2020. Of the 336 operable cases, 101 patients underwent MVRs. The remaining 235 underwent standard gastric resections (SGRs), of which 173 patients were in stage T3/T4. To compare survival, a control group of 101 patients with palliative procedures was used—bypass anastomosis or exploration.

Results MVR had a lower survival rate than the SGR but significantly higher than the palliative procedures. The predominant gender in MVR was male (72.3%), with a mean age of 61 years. The perioperative mortality was 3.96% (n = 4), and the overall median survival was 28.1 months. The most frequently resected organs were the spleen (67.3%), followed by the pancreas (32.7%) and the liver (20.8%). In 56.4% of the cases two organs were resected, in 28.7% three organs, and in 13.9% four organs. The main complication was bleeding (9.9%). The major postoperative complications in the MVR were 14.85%, and in the SGR 6.4% (p < 0.05). Better long-term results were observed in patients who underwent R0 resections compared with R1.

Conclusion Multiorgan resections are characterized by poorer survival and a higher complication rate than gastrectomies. On the other hand, they have better long-term outcomes than palliative procedures. However, MVRs are admissible when performed by an experienced surgical team in high-volume centers.

Keywords

gastric adenocarcinoma - multivisceral resection - case series

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer-related death.[1] In Western populations, gastric cancers are often at an advanced stage at diagnosis, involving adjacent structures.[2] [3] [4] Patients with T4 tumors[5] often present with peritoneal dissemination or other distant metastases, while those in M0 stage are eligible surgical candidates.[6]

The mainstay in managing locally advanced gastric carcinoma is radical surgery, with R0 multivisceral resection (MVR) being the only potentially curative treatment.[7] [8] The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association[9] and National Comprehensive Cancer Network[10] recommend extensive resections of adjacent organs for T4b when negative margins are possible, while the European Society for Medical Oncology[11] advises neoadjuvant therapy. In addition, the achievement of R0 resection remains the most powerful predictor of long-term outcomes in patients who have undergone radical surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma.[12] However, the reliability and safety of the MVR in gastric carcinoma are still questionable because of insufficient and heterogeneous data available based on single-center retrospective studies.[13]

Material and Methods

The article presented a single-center retrospective study in patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma for the period between 2004 and 2020. This study represents nonconsecutive case series. Out of 366 resectable cases, MVR has been performed in 101 patients. The remaining 235 patients, 173 with tumor stage Т3 and Т4а, underwent standard gastric resection (SGR). The comparison between SGR and MVR was based on patients with stage Т3/Т4а carcinoma in the standard resection group. For survival, a comparison was included in a representative control group of 101 patients who underwent palliative procedures (PPs)—bypass anastomosis or explorative laparotomy. In none of the MVR cases was neoadjuvant chemotherapy performed. In the multivisceral group are not included splenectomies for iatrogenic lesions, extensive lymph node dissections, or technical issues. All operations in the MVR group were performed during the open approach, and subtotal resection or gastrectomy was achieved by the differentiation and distance of the tumor from the gastroesophageal junction according to the “Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines.”[9] Seventeen laparoscopic resections (7.2%) were achieved in the SGR group. MVR is performed when it is impossible to separate cancer from neighboring organs safely. T4b stage was provided preoperatively in 67% of cases. Most anastomoses were performed by standard suture technique in our department. There is a high volume in the performance of liver and pancreatic resections in our department, which greatly benefited us performing MVR. The postoperative period was closely monitored, and all complications were recorded. After discharge, the patients are followed up in the oncology clinic of our hospital at 6 months by computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography/CT and by examination of tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19–9, and CA 72–4). The median follow-up period was 18 months (6–72). As we do not have sufficient data on the recurrence rate, we refer to survival under long-term outcomes. Obtained results were collected in a Microsoft Excel table. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS StatisticsVer. 26 and MedCalc, Ver. 20.014. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In the presence of normal distribution (p > 0.05), metric variables were presented with mean value and standard deviation and analyzed using parametrical statistical methods. In the absence of normal distribution (p < 0.05), we utilized median values and nonparametrical statistical methods. Correlation between qualitative variables was studied using chi-square analysis. This research is registered following the Declaration of Helsinki and attached to a publicly accessible database (ResearchRegistry; researchregistry7415; https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/61a6804bb59264001e08ffc9/). This case series has been reported in line with the PROCESS guideline.[14]

Results

Most MVR patients were male (72.3%, n = 73), and the median patient age was 61 years ([Table 1]). The median overall survival rate was 28.1 months. In 78.2% (n = 79) of the patients, the main symptom was pain. The perioperative 30-day mortality rate was 3.96% (n = 4). The complications in these four cases are bleeding in two patients, one esophageal-entero-anastomotic leakage, and one necrotizing pancreatitis with grade “C” postoperative pancreatic fistula. All are men with gastrectomy, cardiovascular diseases, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1. In the first two patients, one adjacent organ was resected (spleen/liver), the next two (colon and liver), and in the last one, four organs (spleen, pancreas, colon, and liver). The perioperative mortality rate in SGR patients was 0.6% (n = 1), significantly lower compared with that in MVR patients (p = 0.046; 95% confidence interval [CI] –0.2123% to 9.1642%; chi-square test 3.975). The estimated annual survival rates were as follows: 1-year (58.3%), 3-year (27.7%), and 5-year (18.8%). In 5.9% (n = 6) of patients, the survival was longer than 10 years. The median duration of postoperative hospital stay in MVR was 13 days compared with 10 days in SGR patients—another significant difference (p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1.5715–4.4285). The most common resected organs during MVR were the spleen (67.3%, n = 68), pancreas (32.7%, n = 33), liver—wedge resection or left lateral lobectomy (20.8%, n = 21), colon (20.8%, n = 21), and duodenum/head of the pancreas—Whipple procedure (6.9%, n = 7). In 56.4% (n = 57) of cases resection of 2 organs was performed (stomach + 1), in 28.7% (n = 29) 3 organs, in 13.9% (n = 14) 4 organs, and in 1 case (0.99%) were resected 5 organs (gastrectomy, distal spleno-pancreatectomy, left liver lobectomy, and left colectomy). There was no significant correlation between the number and type of resected organs and the rates of survival and major complications (p > 0.05) ([Fig. 1A, B]). Borderline significance of survival rates was found only in cases with the Whipple procedure and in the subgroup “other organs” (p = 0.05). The leading postoperative surgical complications in MVR were bleeding (n = 10, 9.9%), intra-abdominal abscess (n = 8, 7.9%), anastomotic insufficiency (n = 6, 5.9%), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (n = 6, 18.2% of 33 performed distal pancreatic resections) ([Table 2]). Another significance was observed in the incidence of major postoperative complications (≥ IIIa) according to the Clavien–Dindo classification—14.85% (n = 15) in MVR versus 6.4% (n = 11) in SGR, respectively (p < 0.0022; 95% CI 1.1236% to 17.1238%; chi-square test 5.269). In 21.8% (n = 22) of patients the complications were treated conservatively, in 6.9% (n = 7) by using minimally invasive techniques (endoscopic hemostasis or percutaneous drainage), while 10.9% (n = 11) of cases required re-laparotomies (hemostasis – 8.9%, n = 9; re-anastomosis – 2.97%, n = 3). The comparison of survival following surgical revision in the MVR group revealed significantly lower survival rates than cases that did not require reoperation (p = 0.028; 95% CI 0.6308% to 14.6966%; chi-square test 4.853) ([Fig. 2]). No statistical correlation was found between postoperative bleeding and survival (p = 0.18).

Fig. 1 Comparing survival to the number (A) and type (B) of resected organs.

Fig. 2 Comparison of survival according to reoperation in the multivisceral resection (MVR) group.

Table 1 Clinical characteristics and survival in MVR group

Parameters	N/% or Range
Gender
Male	73 (72.3)
Female	28 (27.7)
Age (average)	61 (28–88)
Symptoms
Pain	79 (78.2)
Weight loss	59 (58.4)
Weakness	45 (44.6)
Anemia	46 (45.5)
Vomiting	44 (43.6)
“En bloc” resection	74 (73.3)
Average postoperative stay (d)	13 (7–55)
Involved organs
Spleen	68 (67.3)
Pancreas	33 (32.7)
Liver (wedge resection or left lobectomy)	21 (20.8)
Colon	21 (20.8)
Duodenum/Head of the pancreas (Whipple procedure)	7 (6.9)
Other (adrenal gland,1 ovary,2 esophagus,5 small intestine,1 diaphragm2)	11 (10.9)
Number of resected organs
II	57 (56.4)
III	29 (28.7)
IV	14 (13.9)
V	1 (1)
Average survival (mo)	28.1 (3–135)
Annual survival
1-y	58.3
3-y	27.7
5-y	18.8
30-d mortality	4 (3.96)

Abbreviation: MVR, multivisceral resection.

Table 2 Complications and treatment in MVR group

Parameters	N/%
Complications
Bleeding	10 (9.9)
Abscess	8 (7.9)
Anastomotic leak	6 (5.9)
Pancreatic fistula	6 (5.9)
Postoperative pancreatitis	3 (2.97)
Dehiscence	4 (3.96)
Wound infection	5 (4.95)
Cardiopulmonary	12 (11.9)
Neurological	1 (0.99)
Sepsis	2 (1.98)
Clavien–Dindo classification
II	15 (14.85)
IIIa	6 (5.94)
IIIb	5 (4.95)
IVa	3 (2.97)
IVb	1 (0.99)
≥ IIIa	15 (14.85)
Treatment
Conservative	22 (21.8)
Mini-invasive	7 (6.9)
Reoperation	11 (10.9)
Hemostasis	9 (8.9)
Reanastomosis	3 (2.97)

Abbreviation: MVR, multivisceral resection.

The following analysis of pathologic characteristics in the MVR group showed that the average size of tumors, primarily located in the stomach body (37.6%, n = 38), was 66.8 mm ([Table 3]). There was no association between tumor size and survival rates following the investigation of tumor diameter across 40 to 100 mm, at 10-mm intervals (p > 0.05). The average number of lymph nodes dissected during surgery was 18, with slightly more than half of them (9.5) found to be metastatic. Poorly differentiated carcinomas were prevalent in the MVR group (60.4%, n = 61), typical considering tumor biology and invasiveness. The comparison of survival rates between patients with G3 versus G1/G2 carcinomas did not show significance (p = 0.26). In 72.3% (n = 73) of cases were positive for tumor invasion to another organ (Т4b), while the remaining 27.7% had no further organ involvement (Т3 or Т4а). The comparison of Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival between the two subgroups (T3/T4a vs. T4b) did not show a statistical difference (p = 0.81). The prevalent lymph node status was N3 in 33.7% of cases, followed by N2 (30.7%) and N1 (16.8%). Only 18.8% of patients were without lymphatic invasion (N0). Clear resection margin (R0), the main target of surgical treatment, and a favorable prognostic factor were achieved in 84.2% (n = 85) of cases.

Table 3 Pathological characteristics of multivisceral resections

Parameters	N/% or Range
Average lesion size (mm)	66.8 (25–145)
Primary tumor localization
Cardia	18 (17.8)
Fundus	5 (5.0)
Corpus	38 (37.6)
Antrum	23 (22.8)
Linitis plastica	17 (16.8)
Degree of differentiation
G1	4 (3.96)
G2	36 (35.6)
G3	61 (60.4)
T-stage
Т3/T4a	28 (27.7)
Т4b	73 (72.3)
N-stage
N0	19 (18.8)
N1	17 (16.8)
N2	31 (30.7)
N3	34 (33.7)
Harvested lymph nodes (average)	18 (5–61)
Metastatic lymph nodes (average)	9.5 (1–49)
Resection margin
R0	85 (84.2)
R1	16 (15.8)

Survival rates in the MVR group were lower than those in the SGR but still higher than in PP ([Fig. 3]). The survival analysis showed no significant association with lymph node involvement (N– vs. N + , p = 0.2). Nevertheless, a comparison of lymph node status in 3-year survival has found a significantly lower survival rate in patients with N3 stage compared with N0 patients (p < 0.022; 95% CI 4.8114% to 56.8151%; chi-square test 5.283). Long-term outcomes in MVR patients who underwent R0 resection were better than those with R1 (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.6678% to 17.1921%; chi-square test 4.635) ([Fig. 4]).

Fig. 3 Comparison of survival between MVR, SGR, and PP. MVR, multivisceral resections; GR, gastric resections; PP, palliative procedures.

Fig. 4 Kaplan–Meier in multivisceral resection (MVR) patients comparing survival according to R status.

Comparing overall survival between MVR patients with R0 resection and SGR patients has shown a significance in favor of standard procedures (p = 0.0002). On the other hand, another comparison between M1 disease (liver metastases), PP, and M0 stage has found that patients with PPs and metastatic disease are comparable in survival but statistically distinguishable from M0 cases. The comparison of survival rates in PPs, М1, R1, and N3 cases shows no significance (p > 0.05) ([Fig. 5]). Therefore, it can be concluded that R1 and N3 are independent prognostic factors for poor long-term outcomes.

Fig. 5 Comparison of survival between palliative procedure (PP), R1, M1, and N3 patients.

Discussion

Radical surgery can benefit patients with advanced gastric carcinoma, and R0 resection is significantly associated with better survival.[15] Nevertheless, long-term outcomes remain unsatisfactory.[16] Preoperative differentiation of Т3/T4a from Т4b lesions is performed by contrast-enhanced CT or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). However, neither of these methods has high specificity and sensitivity.[17] Study results show 80% estimated accuracy of CT for differentiation Т4 lesions,[18] while another analysis has demonstrated 79% overall accuracy of EUS.[19] Preoperative imaging diagnosis of adjacent organ invasion is not easy, and deciding on the performance of MVR is challenging even during surgery.[3] [7] [20] Adhesions caused by peritumoral desmoplastic reactions can be mistaken for carcinoma infiltration, especially in the pancreas.[3] [21] Any adhesion suspicious of tumor invasion should be considered malignant during surgery, and adhesiolysis should be avoided.[22] Its performance is associated with a high risk for residual tumor tissue (R1) and unfavorable long-term outcomes.[6] Some Japanese case series have demonstrated that 55% of the tumors were considered infiltrative while being cancer mimicry, as confirmed by a pathological investigation.[16] [23] Challenges in peri- and intraoperative detection of malignancies are the reason for the relatively low percentages of true tumor invasion (pT4b) reported in many series: Martin et al 13.8%[24]; Xiao et al 39.7%[25]; Molina et al 40%[26]; Mita et al 46.3%[27]; Yang et al 43.1%[22]; Aversa et al 47.6%[28]; Tran et al 53%[29]; Dias et al 58.6%[13]; Cheng et al 61.5%[30]; Ozer et al 66.1%.[31] The true malignant invasion was detected in 72.3% (n = 73) of cases in the present study, mainly attributed to delays in seeking medical care and late diagnosis of the disease (only 18.5%, n = 62 patients in the T1/T2 stage).

Many series demonstrate that the number and type of resected organs do not impact the short- and long-term outcomes.[22] [32] [33] [34] [35] The present study results confirm this finding (p > 0.05) ([Fig. 1A, B]). Borderline significance was seen only in survival following Whipple procedures and the “other organs” subgroups (p = 0.05). Pacelli et al report that the most common resected organ in MVR for gastric cancer was the spleen, while according to other authors, it is the pancreas.[13] [26] In our study, the most common resected organ was the spleen (67.3%), followed by the pancreas (32.7%), liver (20.8%), and colon (20.8%). Splenectomies associated with iatrogenic injury or technical problems were excluded from the series. According to Tran et al, individual studies do not specify the number of splenectomies performed during MVR in connection with iatrogenic injury, technical issues, or extended lymph node dissection.[29] MVRs combined with liver or transverse colon resection are associated with better survival than MVR involving other adjacent organs.[30] [36] [37] In addition, DA Silva report that pancreatic involvement is associated with a poorer prognosis.[7] Our study does not confirm these findings. Some series suggest that splenectomy is an independent prognostic factor for poor survival,[38] [39] while others have not made similar conclusions or reported heterogeneous findings depending on the disease stage.[16] [24] [34] [40] When the removal of two or more organs is needed to achieve clear resection margins, the performance of MVR is justified despite coexisting perioperative risk.[6] Saito et al have demonstrated that in patients with achieved R0 resection, the number of resected organs does not impact the short- and long-term outcomes.[37]

Several series report a higher incidence of surgical complications in patients who underwent MVR with two or more organs.[12] [24] [27] [31] Some authors also report increased postoperative complications following MVR,[13] [24] [29] while others have not found statistical differences.[22] [32] The reported rate of complications in MVR patients varies between 13.1 and 37.9%.[3] [22] [24] [26] [27] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [38] [41] [42] [43] The number and type of resected organs in our series had no impact on the rate of complications. The comparison of major complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIa) in MVR and SGR patients has shown significance in the MVR group—14.85% versus 6.4% (p < 0.002; 95% CI 1.1236% to 17.1238%; chi-square test 5.269). In a systematic review including 17 series and 734 patients who underwent MVR, Brar et al reported overall complication rates ranging from 11.8 to 90.5% and perioperative mortality from 0 to 15%.[6]

Some authors emphasize the advantages of MVR based on evidence of an approximately 4% perioperative mortality rate,[24] [26] [30] [32] [44] while others report higher, significant rates in the range of 10 to 13%.[3] [31] [45] [46] [47] According to Mita et al, perioperative mortality varies between 1 and 15%.[27] In their studies, Pacelli et al, Yang et al, and Tran et al have not found statistical differences in perioperative mortality between patients who underwent MVR and SGR.[22] [29] [32] The results from our study showed a significance in postoperative mortality in the two groups, with a higher rate in the MVRs—3.96% versus 0.6% in standard resections (p = 0.046; 95% CI –0.2123% to 9.1642%; chi-square test 3.975). Nevertheless, the observed mortality rate is relatively low compared with those reported in other series.

Dias et al have reported a significantly longer duration of hospital stay in the MVR group (an average of 17.7 vs. 11.5 days; p < 0.001), as well as a higher readmission rate.[13] We also observed a difference in the hospital stay in the MVR group (13 days) compared with the group with standard resections (10 days) (p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1.5715–4.4285).

According to Kunisaki et al, a tumor diameter ≤ 100 mm and few metastatic lymph nodes (6 or less) are favorable indicators for curative MVR surgery for patients with gastric carcinoma.[42] On the other hand, Mita et al recommend radical MVR even in large tumors (> 100 mm) due to unsatisfactory outcomes from PPs.[27] Our analysis also confirmed the absence of correlation between short- and long-term outcomes and tumor size (p > 0.05). The same refers to the lymph node status (N+ vs. N–; p > 0.05). Comparing lymph node status according to 3-year survival does not show any differences between N0 versus N1 (p = 0.145; 95% CI –8.0677% to 53.4756%; chi-square test 2.128) or N0 versus N2 (p = 0.159; 95% CI –7.4493% to 47.9259%; chi-square test 1.986). On the other hand, the comparison of N3 (≥ 7 lymph nodes) versus N0 revealed significantly lower survival rates in patients in the N3 stage (p < 0.022; 95% CI 4.8114% to 56.8151%; chi-square test 5.283). This observation has been confirmed by other case series,[22] [28] [34] and some authors even concluded that MVR should not be performed in patients with extensive macroscopic lymph node involvement (N3).[22] [23] [34] [42] [46] The most common tumor invasion in MVR patients is lymphatic, vascular, and perineural.[13] Yang et al even suggest that tumor thrombosis is an independent prognostic factor since it could indicate micrometastases in the vessels and circulating tumor cells in the blood.[22] Further research in this area has shown that metastatic lymph nodes (lymph node ratio ≥ 2), peritoneal dissemination, distant metastases, and serum albumin levels (< 30 g/L) are independent poor prognostic factors.[41] [46]

The median overall survival reported in several series was between 13 and 38 months.[15] [24] [26] [28] [31] [46] [48] [49] The median survival in our study was also in this range—28.1 months. Only one study demonstrated a statistically higher survival rate in MVR compared with SGR patients,[3], while in the other series, the advantage favored SGRs.[13] [15] [24] [50] Our analysis has shown statistically lower survival rates in the MVR group relative to the SGR group, but still significantly higher than those in the PP group (p < 0.05) ([Fig. 3]). Other studies have also confirmed the benefits of MVRs over PPs (explorative laparotomy or bypass anastomosis).[22] [31] [42] [50] [51] A negative resection margin (R0) is the most important and independent prognostic factor for favorable long-term outcomes. Several series demonstrate significant survival benefits from multivisceral R0 resections compared with R1-MVR.[3],[17],[21],[22],[24],[26],[28], [30],[31],[37] Our analysis shows better long-term outcomes in patients who underwent R0 resection compared with R1 resection (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.6678% to 17.1921%; chi-square test 4.635) ([Fig. 4]). Saito et al reported similar outcomes in patients with R1-MVR and patients with palliative interventions.[37] In contrast, Yang et al have demonstrated similar survival rates between patients with R1 resection and those who underwent PPs, and patients with N3 status.[22] The comparison between M1 (liver metastases), PP, and М0 cases revealed comparable outcomes in PP and M1 (p < 0.05) but statistically different from those in М0 patients (p > 0.05). Moreover, the summary comparison of overall survival in PP, М1, R1, and N3 cases shows no significance (p > 0.05) ([Fig. 5]). Therefore, we conclude that R1 and N3 are independent unfavorable prognostic factors for survival. Other multivariate analyses demonstrate that R and N status are the main prognostic factors in MVRs.[7] [26]

Cheng et al have reported better survival after MVR in patients with T3 compared with T4 tumors,[30] while other authors have not found statistically significant differences.[3] [22] [26] [27] [41] Real tumor invasion to another organ (Т4b) was established in 72.3% (n = 73) of cases in our single-center series, while the remaining 27.7% were found in desmoplastic peritumoral mimicry. The comparison of Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival between the two subgroups (T3/T4a vs. T4b) did not show significance (p = 0.81). A Chinese study from 2017 reports that Borrmann type IV gastric carcinoma is an independent prognostic factor for MVR.[52]

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can optimize patient selection for MVR. In addition, both adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy in combination with MVR for gastric carcinoma could improve oncological outcomes.[7] Yang et al report that MVR followed by at least six chemotherapy courses extend median survival by nearly 22 months (p < 0.05).[22] Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly important in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Unfortunately, in our series, there is only one patient with preoperative treatment. It is a consequence of no established standard for neoadjuvant therapy for gastric carcinoma in our country, which necessitated the performance of initial surgery with subsequent adjuvant treatment. That is a significant shortcoming that we have nearly managed to eliminate. Neoadjuvant treatment should be an integral part of locally advanced gastric tumors, leading to better long-term outcomes such as overall and disease-free survival.

The retrospective nature of the study can be pointed out as a disadvantage. In addition, the quality of life and disease-free period of multiple patients were not monitored due to low collaboration. Another issue is that in a certain percentage of cases, pathologists have not determined the status of the resection lines. Аlso did not specify the exact lymph status due to the specimen's poor examination of all available lymph nodes. We are currently trying to unravel these issues and hope that in the future, we will be able to deal with them to improve the accuracy of our results. In addition, we allow for the possibility of statistical error type II as a limitation of the study.

Conclusion

MVRs are associated with poorer survival and a higher incidence of complications than SGRs. On the other hand, they are associated with better long-term outcomes than palliative interventions. Achievement of negative resection margins is a main independent factor for better survival, while R1 and N3 status and reoperations are factors for unfavorable long-term outcomes. However, the limited number of studies and their heterogeneous results do not permit any general conclusion about the safety of multiorgan procedures. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that MVRs are admissible when performed by experienced surgical teams at high-volume centers.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Antonia Naplatanova and Ivan Nedyalkov for their invaluable help in determining the survival of this study.

• References

• 1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (06) 394-424
• 2 Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (06) 1471-1474
• 3 Carboni F, Lepiane P, Santoro R. et al. Extended multiorgan resection for T4 gastric carcinoma: 25-year experience. J Surg Oncol 2005; 90 (02) 95-100
• 4 Chau I, Norman AR, Cunningham D, Waters JS, Oates J, Ross PJ. Multivariate prognostic factor analysis in locally advanced and metastatic esophago-gastric cancer–pooled analysis from three multicenter, randomized, controlled trials using individual patient data. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (12) 2395-2403
• 5 Kumagai K, Sano T. Revised points and disputed matters in the eighth edition of the TNM staging system for gastric cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2021; 51 (07) 1024-1027
• 6 Brar SS, Seevaratnam R, Cardoso R. et al. Multivisceral resection for gastric cancer: a systematic review. Gastric Cancer 2012; 15 (Suppl 1): S100-S107
• 7 DA Silva AM. Multiorganic resections in gastric cancer. Rev Col Bras Cir 2017; 44 (06) 549-552
• 8 Makuuchi R, Irino T, Tanizawa Y, Bando E, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for gastric cancer. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 2018; 4 (06) 26
• 9 Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2021; 24 (01) 1-21
• 10 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 (02) 167-192
• 11 Lordick F, Carneiro F, Cascinu S. et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: [e-mail]. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022; 33 (10) 1005-1020
• 12 Martin II RC, Jaques DP, Brennan MF, Karpeh M. Achieving RO resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: is it worth the risk of multiorgan resection?. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194 (05) 568-577
• 13 Dias AR, Pereira MA, Oliveira RJ. et al. Multivisceral resection vs standard gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2020; 121 (05) 840-847
• 14 Agha RA, Sohrabi C, Mathew G, Franchi T, Kerwan A, O'Neill N. PROCESS Group. The PROCESS 2020 guideline: updating consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasESeries in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg 2020; 84: 231-235
• 15 Lee JH, Noh SH, Lah KH, Choi SH, Min JS. The prognosis of stage IV gastric carcinoma patients after curative resection. Hepatogastroenterology 2001; 48 (42) 1802-1805
• 16 Isozaki H, Tanaka N, Tanigawa N, Okajima K. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced gastric cancer with macroscopic invasion to adjacent organs treated with radical surgery. Gastric Cancer 2000; 3 (04) 202-210
• 17 Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (15) 2107-2116
• 18 Seevaratnam R, Cardoso R, McGregor C. et al. How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer 2012; 15 (1, Suppl 1): S3-S18
• 19 Cardoso R, Coburn N, Seevaratnam R. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of EUS for preoperative staging for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2012; 15 (1, Suppl 1): S19-S26
• 20 Coburn NG. Lymph nodes and gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99 (04) 199-206
• 21 Piso P, Bellin T, Aselmann H, Bektas H, Schlitt HJ, Klempnauer J. Results of combined gastrectomy and pancreatic resection in patients with advanced primary gastric carcinoma. Dig Surg 2002; 19 (04) 281-285
• 22 Yang Y, Hu J, Ma Y, Chen G, Liu Y. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: a retrospective study. Am J Surg 2021; 221 (05) 1011-1017
• 23 Kitamura K, Tani N, Koike H. et al. Combined resection of the involved organs in T4 gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 2000; 47 (36) 1769-1772
• 24 Martin II RCG, Jaques DP, Brennan MF, Karpeh M. Extended local resection for advanced gastric cancer: increased survival versus increased morbidity. Ann Surg 2002; 236 (02) 159-165
• 25 Xiao L, Li M, Xu F. et al. Extended multi-organ resection for cT4 gastric carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. Pak J Med Sci 2013; 29 (02) 581-585
• 26 Molina JC, Al-Hinai A, Gosseling-Tardif A. et al. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers-11-year experience at a high-volume North American center. J Gastrointest Surg 2019; 23 (01) 43-50
• 27 Mita K, Ito H, Katsube T. et al. Prognostic factors affecting survival after multivisceral resection in patients with clinical T4b gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21 (12) 1993-1999
• 28 Aversa JG, Diggs LP, Hagerty BL. et al. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25 (03) 609-622
• 29 Tran TB, Worhunsky DJ, Norton JA. et al. Multivisceral resection for gastric cancer: results from the US Gastric Cancer Collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22 (Suppl 3): S840-S847
• 30 Cheng CT, Tsai CY, Hsu JT. et al. Aggressive surgical approach for patients with T4 gastric carcinoma: promise or myth?. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18 (06) 1606-1614
• 31 Ozer I, Bostanci EB, Orug T. et al. Surgical outcomes and survival after multiorgan resection for locally advanced gastric cancer. Am J Surg 2009; 198 (01) 25-30
• 32 Pacelli F, Cusumano G, Rosa F. et al; Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer. Multivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: an Italian multicenter observational study. JAMA Surg 2013; 148 (04) 353-360
• 33 Kim DY, Joo JK, Seo KW. et al. T4 gastric carcinoma: the benefit of non-curative resection. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76 (06) 453-457
• 34 Jeong O, Choi WY, Park YK. Appropriate selection of patients for combined organ resection in cases of gastric carcinoma invading adjacent organs. J Surg Oncol 2009; 100 (02) 115-120
• 35 Brady MS, Rogatko A, Dent LL, Shiu MH. Effect of splenectomy on morbidity and survival following curative gastrectomy for carcinoma. Arch Surg 1991; 126 (03) 359-364
• 36 D'Amato A, Santella S, Cristaldi M, Gentili V, Pronio A, Montesani C. The role of extended total gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51 (56) 609-612
• 37 Saito H, Tsujitani S, Maeda Y. et al. Combined resection of invaded organs in patients with T4 gastric carcinoma. Gastric Cancer 2001; 4 (04) 206-211
• 38 Dhar DK, Kubota H, Tachibana M. et al. Prognosis of T4 gastric carcinoma patients: an appraisal of aggressive surgical treatment. J Surg Oncol 2001; 76 (04) 278-282
• 39 Suehiro S, Nagasue N, Ogawa Y, Sasaki Y, Hirose S, Yukaya H. The negative effect of splenectomy on the prognosis of gastric cancer. Am J Surg 1984; 148 (05) 645-648
• 40 Koga S, Kaibara N, Kimura O, Nishidoi H, Kishimoto H. Prognostic significance of combined splenectomy or pancreaticosplenectomy in total and proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Am J Surg 1981; 142 (05) 546-550
• 41 Kobayashi A, Nakagohri T, Konishi M. et al. Aggressive surgical treatment for T4 gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2004; 8 (04) 464-470
• 42 Kunisaki C, Akiyama H, Nomura M. et al. Surgical outcomes in patients with T4 gastric carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202 (02) 223-230
• 43 Li MZ, Deng L, Wang JJ. et al. Surgical outcomes and prognostic factors of T4 gastric cancer patients without distant metastasis. PLoS One 2014; 9 (09) e107061
• 44 Desai AM, Pareek M, Nightingale PG, Fielding JW. Improving outcomes in gastric cancer over 20 years. Gastric Cancer 2004; 7 (04) 196-201 , discussion 201–203
• 45 Cuschieri A, Fayers P, Fielding J. et al; The Surgical Cooperative Group. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: preliminary results of the MRC randomised controlled surgical trial. Lancet 1996; 347 (9007): 995-999
• 46 Oñate-Ocaña LF, Becker M, Carrillo JF. et al. Selection of best candidates for multiorgan resection among patients with T4 gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2008; 98 (05) 336-342
• 47 Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EM, Sasako M, van de Velde CJ. Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11 (05) 439-449
• 48 Yong WS, Wong WK, Chan HS, Soo KC. Extended resection of locally advanced (T4) stomach cancer. Ann Acad Med Singap 2000; 29 (06) 723-726
• 49 Min JS, Jin SH, Park S, Kim SB, Bang HY, Lee JI. Prognosis of curatively resected pT4b gastric cancer with respect to invaded organ type. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19 (02) 494-501
• 50 Kim JH, Jang YJ, Park SS. et al. Surgical outcomes and prognostic factors for T4 gastric cancers. Asian J Surg 2009; 32 (04) 198-204
• 51 Mita K, Ito H, Fukumoto M. et al. Surgical outcomes and survival after extended multiorgan resection for T4 gastric cancer. Am J Surg 2012; 203 (01) 107-111
• 52 Xiao H, Ma M, Xiao Y. et al. Incomplete resection and linitis plastica are factors for poor survival after extended multiorgan resection in gastric cancer patients. Sci Rep 2017; 7 (01) 15800

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 05. September 2022

Angenommen: 05. Dezember 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. Februar 2023