Comparative Effectiveness of Lymphadenectomy Strategies During Curative Resection for Gastric Adenocarcinoma
- 25 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term effectiveness of three lymphadenectomy strategies in patients with gastric cancer. We hypothesized that, compared with the traditional standard (D2) lymph node dissection strategy, the less aggressive modified standard (mD2) lymphadenectomy may offer superior effectiveness due to reduced operative morbidity and comparable long-term recurrence-free survival.
A Markov decision analysis model was created to simulate 5-year outcomes across three lymphadenectomy approaches for gastric cancer: limited regional (D1), traditional standard (D2), and modified standard (mD2). The primary outcome was discounted quality-adjusted life-years (dQALY). Model variable estimates were derived from outcomes data and quality of life estimates published in Europe and America within the last 15 years. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for clinically relevant variables.
The mD2 lymphadenectomy offered 3.03 dQALY over 5 years, outperforming D2 (2.62 dQALY) and D1 (2.37 dQALY). Monte Carlo simulations indicated that both mD2 and D2 lymph node dissection strategies outperformed D1 in 94.9% of simulations. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the mD2 approach would be less effective than D2 if the perioperative mortality rate of mD2 was greater than 6.9% (3.2% baseline).
Across modern series, the modified standard mD2 lymphadenectomy is an effective alternative to the traditional D2 lymphadenectomy for patients with gastric cancer. A D1-limited regional lymphadenectomy is not recommended during gastric cancer resection.
KeywordsGastric cancer Stomach neoplasms Gastrectomy Stomach/surgery Lymph node excision
Statement of Author Contribution
Conception and design of study: Hu, Le, Zaydfudim
Acquisition of data: Hu, Goudreau, Leick
Analysis and/or interpretation of data: Hu, McMurry, Le, Zaydfudim
Drafting the manuscript: Hu, Goudreau, Leick
Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: McMurry, Le, Zaydfudim
Final approval of the version of the manuscript to be published: Hu, Goudreau, Leick, McMurry, Le, Zaydfudim
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work: Hu, Goudreau, Leick, McMurry, Le, Zaydfudim
This work was supported by the L30 CA220861 Award from National Cancer Institute and Grant #IRG 81-001-26 from the American Cancer Society to VMZ and by the Institutional National Research Service Award T32 CA 163177 from the National Cancer Institute to BG and KL.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.American Cancer Society, ed. Global cancer facts & figures. 3rd ed. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015.Google Scholar
- 5.Bando E, Makuuchi R, Irino T, Tanizawa Y, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Validation of the prognostic impact of the new tumor-node-metastasis clinical staging in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2018.Google Scholar
- 25.Barry JD, Blackshaw GR, Edwards P, et al. Western body mass indices need not compromise outcomes after modified D2 gastrectomy for carcinoma. Gastric Cancer. 2003;6(2):80–85.Google Scholar
- 30.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(10184):1948–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Wang SJ, Fuller CD, Choi M, Thomas CR. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resected gastric cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2008;2(2):57–63.Google Scholar
- 44.Mocellin S, McCulloch P, Kazi H, Gama-Rodrigues JJ, Yuan Y, Nitti D. Extent of lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD001964. doi(8):CD001964.Google Scholar