Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastric Cancer Patients Improves Clinical Outcomes at a US Cancer Center

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for gastric cancer patients have shown improved outcomes in Asia. However, data on gastric cancer ERAS (GC-ERAS) programs in the United States are sparse. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes before and after implementation of an GC-ERAS protocol at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients surgically treated for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2012 to October 2016 and compared the GC-ERAS group (November 1, 2015–October 1, 2016) with the historical control (HC) group (January 1, 2012–October 31, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for age, sex, number of comorbidities, body mass index, stage of disease, and distal versus total gastrectomy. RESULTS: Of a total of 95 identified patients, matching analysis resulted in 20 and 40 patients in the GC-ERAS and HC groups, respectively. Lower rates of nasogastric tube (35% vs. 100%, P < 0.001) and intraabdominal drain placement (25% vs. 85%, P < 0.001), faster advancement of diet (P < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (5.5 vs. 7.8 days, P=0.01) were observed in the GC-ERAS group than in the HC group. The GC-ERAS group showed a trend toward increased use of minimally invasive surgery (P=0.06). There were similar complication and 30-day readmission rates between the two groups (P=0.57 and P=0.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a GC-ERAS protocol significantly improved perioperative outcomes in a western cancer center. This finding warrants further prospective investigation.

Diagnostic criteria and risk assessment of complications after gastric cancer surgery in western countries / 中华胃肠外科杂志

Postoperative complications are important outcome measurements for surgical quality and safety control. However, the complication registration has always been problematic due to the lack of definition consensus and the other practical difficulties. This narrative review summarizes the data registry system for single institutional registry, national data registry, international multi-center trial registries in the western world, aiming to share the experience of complication classification and data registration. We interviewed Dr. Koh from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Australia for single institutional experience, Dr. van der Wielen and Dr. Desideriofor, from two international multi-center trial(STOMACH) and registry (IMIGASTRIC) respectively, and Prof. Dr. Wijnhoven from the Dutch Upper GI Audit(DUCA). The major questions include which complications are obligated to report in the respective registry, what are the definitions of those complications, who perform the registration, and how are the complications evaluated or classified. Four telephone conferences were initiated to discuss the above-mentioned topics. The DUCA and IMGASTRIC provided the definition of the major complications. The consent definition provided by DUCA was based on the LOW classification which came out after a four-year discussion and consensus meeting among international experts in the according field. However, none of the four registries asked for an obligatory standardization of the diagnostic criteria among the participating centers or surgeons. Instead, all the registries required a detailed recording of the diagnostic strategy and classification of the complications with the Clavien-Dindo scoring system. Most data were registered by surgeons or data managers during or immediately after the hospitalization. The investigators or an independent third party conducted the auditing of the data quality. Standardization of complication diagnosis among different centers is a difficult task, consuming much effort and time. On top of that, standardization of the complication registration is of critical and practical importance. We encourage all centers to register complications with the diagnostic criteria and following intervention. Based on this, the Clavien-Dindo classification can be properly justified, which has been widely accepted by most centers and should be routinely used as the standard evaluation system for postoperative complications in gastric tumor surgery.