Skip to main content

Evolution of treatment in gastric cancer- a systematic review

Abstract

Multimodality is the standard of care in gastric cancer but surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment. As we are heading towards a more conservative approach for functional preservation without compromising oncological outcomes in all malignancies, the guidelines keeps changing based on various studies.

The extent of surgery used to vary between the east and west, with the east performing more radical surgery and the west more reliant on multimodality therapy. This practice has been changing in the recent times.

In this article we have reviewed how the treatment protocols of gastric cancer has evolved and modified, highlighting the practice changing trials.

Main text

Introduction

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer related death [1]. Countries with high incidence such as South Korea and Japan with a screening program for its citizens has lead to early diagnosis and improved gastric cancer survival, whereas the survival rates in west and in india remains low as most of the cases present in advanced stage.

Multimodality is the standard of care in gastric cancer but surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment. As we are heading towards a more conservative approach for functional preservation without compromising oncological outcomes in all malignancies, the guidelines keeps changing based on various studies. In this article we have reviewed how the treatment of gastric cancer has evolved and modified highlighting some practice changing trials.

Surgical management of gastric cancer

In gastric adenocarcinoma limited to the mucosa (T1a), due to the development of imaging techniques such as EUS, and better characterisation in clinical staging, organ preservation can be possible with EMR/ESD, thus avoiding gastrectomy. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) navigation surgery in addressing the regional lymph node is still controversial.

In T1b-T4 tumours, a distal, subtotal or total gastrectomy with adequate lymph node dissection (D2) is the standard practice.

  1. A

    Extent of lymph node dissection

Adequate nodal dissection of peri gastric lymph nodes and lymph nodes along major vessels is important for staging and prognosticating the disease. In the AJCC 8th edition it is suggested at least 16 regional lymph nodes to be removed for pathological staging but removal of more than 30 lymph nodes is desirable. So different RCT’s studies on the extent of lymph node dissection.

  1. I

    D1 versus D2 lymphadenectomy:

Both the Dutch (1995, n = 996) [2]and MRC (1996, n = 737) [3] trial, the first western trials comparing D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, failed to show a survival benefit from D2 lymphadenectomy on 5 year follow up. The participating surgeons were not adequately trained and the post operative complications were significantly high due to higher rates of splenectomy and distal pancreatectomy which was then recommended as a part of D2 lymphadenectomy by the Japanese guidelines except for antral cancers.

However, a 15 year follow up from the Dutch trial showed overall survival was higher in D2 group compared with D1 (29% vs 21%, p = 0.34) which was not statistically significant. However, gastric-cancer-related death was significantly higher in the D1 group compared with the D2 group (48% vs 37%, HR 0·74 for D2 vs D1, 95% CI 0·59–0·93, p = 0·01), Local recurrence was 22% in the D1 group versus 12% in D2, and regional recurrence was 19% in D1 versus 13% in D2 [4].

A subsequent study by the Italian gastric cancer study group (2010, n = 267) showed that D2 lymphadenectomy can be safely performed avoiding splenectomy and distal pancreatectomy in majority of patients [5]

  1. II

    D1 versus D3 lymphadenectomy:

A single centre RCT from Taiwan (2006, n = 335) [6] is the only trial showing survival benefit from an extended lymph node dissection (N1-N3). Five year overall survival was significantly better in D3 group compared to D1 group (59.5% vs 53.6%) difference between groups 5.9%, p = 0.04.

  1. III

    D2 versus PAND lymphadenectomy:

The Japanese RCT by Sasako et al. (JCOG 9501, 2009, n = 523) [7] proved that an extended lymphadenectomy more than D2 does not add any survival benefit in gastric cancer. The five year overall survival was 70.3% in the D2 lymphadenectomy plus PAND arm, whereas it was 69.2% in arm assigned to D2 lymphadenectomy alone (p = 0.85). The recurrence free survival was also not significantly different between the two arms. (p = 0.56).

Hence NCCN guidelines recommends that a D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard in curative resections in gastric cancer.

  1. B

    Bursectomy versus no bursectomy

Bursectomy for distal tumours is routinely practiced by many surgeons worldwide. The meta analysis by Marano et al. (2018, n-1340) [8] showed significant overall survival in serosa positive cases with bursectomy, pooled HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.73–0.99 (p < 0.05).

However, the RCT from Japan, JCOG 1001 (n = 1503) [9] trial published in 2018 showed that bursectomy does not add a survival benefit in cT3/T4a patients. Five year overall survival was 76.9% in the group assigned to bursectomy and 76.7% in the non-bursectomy group (p = 0.65). The burectomy group had a significantly more common incidence of pancratic fistula, 29% vs 15%, p = 0.032.

  1. III

    Splenectomy versus no splenectomy

Splenic hilar nodes(station 10) removal usually requires splenectomy. The RCT by Sano et al. (JCOG 0110, 2017, n = 505) [10] compared routine splenectomy with station 10 removal in total gastrectomy versus no splenectomy. The five year overall survival was 75.1% in splenectomy group and 76.4% in the spleen preservation group. HR was 0.88 (90.7% CI 0.67 – 1.16) (< 1.21); Thus, splenic preservation was proven to be non-inferior to splenectomy (P 1⁄4 0.025). The trial concluded that splenectomy should be avoided unless greater curvature is involved by the tumour or gross nodes are present at station 10.

  1. IV

    Omentectomy versus no omentectomy

As a part of radical D2 gastrectomy, total omentectomy is done. Few retrospective studies have reported that omentectomy increased post-operative abdominal complications but provided no survival advantage over omentum preservation. JCOG1711, ROAD-GC trial [11] are ongoing comparing omentectomy versus omental preservation in cT3 and cT4a gastric cancers.

  1. E

    Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy

Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has been proven to have equivalent oncological outcomes with the short term benefits of laparoscopy in both distal and total gastrectomy for early gastric cancers (KLASS 1, JCOG 0912, KLASS 03) [12,13,14].

In locally advanced distal gastric cancer, laparoscopic radical distal gastrectomy is safe and effective as shown by CLASS 01, KLASS 02 trials [15, 16].

But for total gastrectomy the ongoing JLSSG0901 trial will make clear the outcomes and benefits of Laparoscopic procedure in locally advanced gastric cancers (Table 1.).

Table 1 Surgical trials

Perioperative chemotherapy

Perioperative chemotherapy with ECF 3 cycles before and after surgery is routinely practised based on the MAGIC trial (2006, n = 503) [17] which showed a 13% improvement in 5 year OS which corresponds to a lowering of risk of death by 25%.

Whether the addition of Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, has any additional benefit was analysed in the MRC ST03 trial [18]. There was no added benefit, but rather complications were higher in the bevacizumab group due to impaired wound healing.

However, the newer recommended regimen now is FLOT, following the results of FLOT 4-AIO (2019, n = 716) trial [19] which showed a significantly better median progression free survival (PFS) compared to ECF regimen (30 vs 18 months, HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62–0.91, p: 0.004) and also median overall survival (50 vs 35 months, HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63–0.94, p: 0.012). The FLOT regimen also resulted in a higher pathological complete response rate with similar complication rates.

Adjuvant chemotherapy

If the patient has not received a neoadjuvant chemotherapy, stage II or higher will benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as shown by the ACTS-GC trail (2011) [20] where adjuvant S1 was used for 1 year. The five year overall survival improved from 61.1% (95% CI, 56.8% to 65.3%) in the surgery-only group to 71.7% (95% CI, 67.8% to 75.7%) in the S-1 group. The hazard ratio for death in S-1 group in comparison to surgery only group was 0.669 (95% CI, 0.540 to 0.828) which showed that the risk of death was reduced by 33.1% by giving adjuvant S-1. The five year recurrence free survival rate improved from 53.1% to 65.4% with S-1. The Hazard ratio for relapse was 0.653(95% CI, 0.537 to 0.793), showing that S-1 reduced the relapse risk by 34.7%.

In the CLASSIC trial (2012) [21] adjuvant CAPOX was analysed which showed a 3 year DFS 74% vs 59%, p- < 0.0001 (Table 2.).

Table 2 Neoadjuvant/ Adjuvant Chemotherapy trials

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The landmark INT -0116 trial (2000) [22] showed a 3 year OS benefit of 50 vs 41% p-0.0005, and DFS 48 vs 31% with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Here, post operative radiation of 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/day, 25#) with bolus FU and LV was used. But this trial was criticised because of inadequate surgery as D0 lymphadenectomy in 54%, D2 lymphadenectomy performed only in 10% of cases and hence the benefit of radiation was likely due to the inadequate surgery.

The subsequent ARTIST trial (2012) [23] showed no survival benefit after chemoradiation following D2 lymphadenectomy but a subgroup analysis showed DFS benefit only in node positive patients ( 77.5 vs 72.3 p-0.0365) which lead to the ARTIST II trial (2019) [24] that included only pathological node positive patients following D2 gastrectomy. The Interim results of the ARTIST II trial showed no benefit of adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy even in node positive patients. (HR 0.971; P—0.879).

The CRITICS trial (2018) [25] also concluded that there is no benefit of in addition of radiotherapy in patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy. The median OS was 43 months (95% CI 31–57) in the chemotherapy arm and 37 months (30–48) in the Chemoradiotherapy arm (hazard ratio from stratified analysis 1·01 (95% CI 0·84–1·22; p = 0·90).

NCCN recommends adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy, however post-operative chemoradiation remains treatment of choice for patients with D1 or D0 lymph node dissection.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The ongoing CRTICS II [26] and TOPGEAR [27] trials are analysing the benefit and feasibility of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer. At present there is no role (Table 3).

Table 3 Neoadjuvant/ Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Conclusions

Although the multidisciplinary management of Carcinoma Stomach has evolved over time, the clinical practice varies between the east and west and in between institutions. At present, the recommendations for curative surgery is a total, subtotal or distal gastrectomy with a D2 lymphadenectomy with a goal to examine 16 or greater nodes.

If initial staging is cT2 or higher, any N then perioperative chemotherapy is preferred. If the patient has not received preoperative therapy, then adjuvant chemotherapy for pT2, N + tumours and Adjuvant Chemoradiation for R1 and R2 resection and those who underwent less than a D2 lymph node dissection. Future studies are aimed at combining targeted and immune therapies with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Availability of data and materials

Mentioned in References.

Abbreviations

EUS:

Endoscopic ultrasound

EMR:

Endoscopic mucosal resection

ESD:

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

NCCN:

National Comprehensive cancer network

RCT:

Radomised control trial

PFS:

Progression free survival

OS:

Overall survival

RT:

Radiotherapy

F:

FU- 5 Fluorouracil

LV:

Leucovorin

X,C:

Capecitabine

P:

Paclitaxel

E:

Epirubicin

O:

OX- Oxaliplatin

s:

S1

D:

Docetaxel

C:

Cyclophosamide

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, et al. GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonenkamp J J, Hermans J, et al. Extended Lymph-Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(12):908–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199903253401202.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. for the Surgical Co-operative Group, Cuschieri A, Weeden S, et al. Patient Survival after D1 and D2 Resections for Gastric Cancer: Long-Term Results of the MRC Randomized Surgical Trial. Br J Cancer. 1999;79(9–10):1522–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690243.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Songun I, Putter H, et al. Surgical Treatment of Gastric Cancer: 15-Year Follow-up Results of the Randomised Nationwide Dutch D1D2 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(5):439–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70070-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Degiuli M, Sasako M, Ponti A. Morbidity and Mortality in the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group Randomized Clinical Trial of D1 versus D2 Resection for Gastric Cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97(5):643–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6936.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu C-W, Hsiung CA, et al. Nodal Dissection for Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(4):309–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70623-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sasako M, Sano T, Yamamoto S, et al. D2 Lymphadenectomy Alone or with Para-aortic Nodal Dissection for Gastric Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(5):453–62. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0707035.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marano L, Polom K, et al. Oncologic Effectiveness and Safety of Bursectomy in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis. J Invest Surg. 2018;31:529–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2017.1355942.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurokawa Y, Doki Y, et al. Bursectomy versus Omentectomy Alone for Resectable Gastric Cancer (JCOG1001): A Phase 3, Open-Label. Randomised Controlled Trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(7):460–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30090-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sano T, Sasako M, Mizusawa J, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Splenectomy in Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):277–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sato Y, Yamada T, et al. Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial to Evaluate Omentum Preserving Gastrectomy for Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer (JCOG1711, ROAD-GC. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(11):1321–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaa113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim H-H, Han S-U, et al. Effect of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy vs Open Distal Gastrectomy on Long-Term Survival Among Patients With Stage I Gastric Cancer: The KLASS-01 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019. 5(4):506-513;5(4):506–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6727.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy versus Open Distal Gastrectomy with Nodal Dissection for Clinical Stage IA or IB Gastric Cancer (JCOG0912): A Multicentre, Non-Inferiority, Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. 5(2):142-151;5(2):142–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30332-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hyung W J, Yang H-K, et al. A Feasibility Study of Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Clinical Stage I Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Multi-Center Phase II Clinical Trial, KLASS 03. Gastric Cancer. 2019. 22(1): 214–22;22(1):214–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-0864-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yu J, Huang C, 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(20):1983;321(20):1983. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5359.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hyung W J, Yang H-K, 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(28):3304. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cunningham D, Allum W H, et al. Perioperative Chemotherapy versus Surgery Alone for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055531.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunningham D, Stenning SP, Smyth EC, et al. Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2–3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):357–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30043-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Batran S-E, Homann N, 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. The Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1948–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sasako M, Sakuramoto S, et al. Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy with S-1 versus Surgery Alone in Stage II or III Gastric Cancer. J Clin Oncol: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29(33):4387–93. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.5908.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bang Y-J, Kim Y-W, et al. Adjuvant Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Gastric Cancer after D2 Gastrectomy (CLASSIC): A Phase 3 Open-Label, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet (London, England). 2012;379(9813):315–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61873-4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Macdonald J S, Smalley S R, et al. Chemoradiotherapy after Surgery Compared with Surgery Alone for Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(10):725–30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010187.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park S H, Sohn T S, et al. Phase III Trial to Compare Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Capecitabine and Cisplatin Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Gastric Cancer: Final Report of the Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Stomach Tumors Trial, Including Survival and Subset Analyses. J Clin Oncol: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3130–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3930.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park S H, Zang D Y, et al. ARTIST 2: Interim Results of a Phase III Trial Involving Adjuvant Chemotherapy and/or Chemoradiotherapy after D2-Gastrectomy in Stage II/III Gastric Cancer (GC). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):4001. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cats A, Jansen E P M, et al. Chemotherapy versus Chemoradiotherapy after Surgery and Preoperative Chemotherapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer (CRITICS): An International, Open-Label, Randomised Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):616–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30132-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Slagter A E, Jansen E P M, et al. CRITICS-II: A Multicentre Randomised Phase II Trial of Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery versus Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Subsequent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery versus Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery in Resectable Gastric Cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):877. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4770-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Leong T, Smithers B M, et al. TOPGEAR: A Randomized, Phase III Trial of Perioperative ECF Chemotherapy with or Without Preoperative Chemoradiation for Resectable Gastric Cancer: Interim Results from an International, Intergroup Trial of the AGITG, TROG, EORTC and CCTG. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(8):2252–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5830-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SKP- Designing, analysis, interpretation and drafting the article. PKS – Drafting and revision of the article. SKA- Drafting and revision of the article. THT – Designing, analysis, interpretation and drafting the article. PPC- Revision of content. VSK- Revision of content. RN- Revision of content. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Houghton T.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We hereby declare that we have conformed with the declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panda, S.K., Sahoo, P.K., Agarwala, S.K. et al. Evolution of treatment in gastric cancer- a systematic review. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 34, 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-022-00114-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-022-00114-7

Keywords

  • Gastric cancer
  • Treatment
  • Multimodality
  • Trials