Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster session 16

2358P - Assessing the efficacy of robot-assisted total gastrectomy for advanced proximal gastric cancer: Results from a three-year clinical trial

Date

21 Oct 2023

Session

Poster session 16

Topics

Pathology/Molecular Biology

Tumour Site

Colon and Rectal Cancer

Presenters

Zhi-Yu Liu

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2023) 34 (suppl_2): S1190-S1201. 10.1016/S0923-7534(23)01928-2

Authors

Z. Liu1, Q. Zhong2, Q. Chen1, C. zheng2, C. Huang2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Gastric Surgery Dept., Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, 350001 - Fuzhou/CN
  • 2 Department Of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, 350001 - Fuzhou/CN

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 2358P

Background

Robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) is accepted as a safety approach to conventional laparoscopy total gastrectomy (LTG) for locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the long-term oncological efficacy of RTG remains unclear.

Methods

This prospective study included 48 patients with advanced proximal GC underwent RTG combined with spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy between March 2018 and February 2020. Patients who underwent LTG in the FUGES-002 study were enrolled in a 1:2 ratio to compare the outcomes between RTG and LTG. The primary outcome was overall postoperative morbidity rate. The secondary outcomes were three-year overall survival (OS), three-year disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence patterns.

Results

After 1:2 propensity score matching, a total of 48 RTG and 96 LTG patients were included, with similar clinical and pathological data in both groups. In terms of surgical outcomes, the RTG group had significantly less intraoperative bleeding than the LTG group (66.4 vs. 38.7 ml, P = 0.042). With regard to lymph node dissection, the RTG group had a significantly higher number of non-gastric lymph node dissections than the LTG group (20.2 vs. 17.5, P = 0.039), and its lymph node metastasis rate was significantly lower than that of the LTG group (27.1% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.030); in terms of postoperative outcomes, the RTG group had significantly shorter times for first gas discharge, first out of bed, first liquid diet, first semi-liquid diet, and length of stay than the LTG group (P <0.05). Regarding long-term prognosis, the 3-year DFS of the RTG and LTG groups were 77.1% and 68.8%, respectively, and the 3-year OS were 85.4% and 74.0% (P >0.05 for both). Within 3 years after surgery, 9 (18.8%) and 27 (28.1%) patients in the RTG and LTG groups experienced recurrence, respectively, with similar recurrence patterns in both groups (P >0.05). There was no independent correlation between RTG and recurrence or gastric cancer-specific death (P >0.05 for both).

Conclusions

Among patients with a preoperative clinical stage indicating locally advanced gastric cancer, RTG, compared with LTG, did not result in inferior disease-free survival and overall survival at 3 years.

Clinical trial identification

The FUGES-014 was a prospective, single-arm, open-label study (NCT03524287) that was conducted at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (FMUUH).

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Changming Huang.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.