Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, H-1217, New York, NY 10065, USA.
World J Surg. 2013 Aug;37(8):1773-7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2070-1.
Much debate still exists regarding the appropriate extent of lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. In high incidence countries in Eastern Asia, more extensive (e.g. D2) lymphadenectomies are standard, and these surgeries are generally done by experienced surgeons with low morbidity (<20 %) and mortality (<1 %). In United States and Western Europe, where the incidence of gastric adenocarcinoma is much lower, the majority of patients are treated at non-referral centers with less extensive (e.g. D1 or D0) lymphadenectomy. This symposium article first reviews early studies that led to recommendations for less extensive lymphadenectomy. Two large prospective, randomized trials performed in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in the 1990s failed to demonstrate a survival benefit of D2 over D1 lymphadenectomy, but these trials have been criticized for inadequate surgical training and high surgical morbidity (43-46 %) and high mortality rates (10-13 %) in the D2 group. We then discuss more contemporary studies that support more extensive lymphadenectomy with a minimum of 16 lymph nodes for adequate staging. The 15-year follow-up of the Netherlands trial now demonstrates an improved disease-specific survival and locoregional recurrence in the D2 group. A prospective, randomized trial from Taiwan found a survival benefit of more extensive lymphadenectomies, and another randomized trial from Japan found adding dissection of para-aortic nodes to a D2 lymphadenectomy did not improve survival. Western surgeons have increasingly accepted the importance of performing more than a D1 node dissection, and Eastern surgeons are accepting that more than a D2 node dissection does not improve survival and increases morbidity. Thus both Eastern and Western approaches are favoring D2 lymphadenectomy as a standard, and on this topic we appear to be harmonizing.
关于胃腺癌淋巴结清扫的适宜范围仍存在较多争议。在东亚高发国家,更广泛的(如 D2)淋巴结清扫术是标准术式,这些手术通常由经验丰富的外科医生进行,发病率<20%,死亡率<1%。而在美国和西欧,胃腺癌的发病率较低,大多数患者在非转诊中心接受治疗,采用的淋巴结清扫术范围较局限(如 D1 或 D0)。本文综述了早期研究,这些研究促成了更广泛淋巴结清扫术的建议。20 世纪 90 年代,英国和荷兰进行的两项大型前瞻性随机试验未能证明 D2 淋巴结清扫术比 D1 淋巴结清扫术具有生存优势,但这些试验因手术培训不足、D2 组手术发病率高(43-46%)和死亡率高(10-13%)而受到批评。然后,我们讨论了一些支持更广泛淋巴结清扫术的最新研究,至少清扫 16 个淋巴结以进行充分分期。荷兰试验的 15 年随访结果显示,D2 组的疾病特异性生存率和局部区域复发率得到改善。台湾的一项前瞻性随机试验发现,更广泛的淋巴结清扫术有生存获益,而日本的另一项随机试验发现,在 D2 淋巴结清扫术的基础上增加对主动脉旁淋巴结的解剖并不能提高生存率。西方外科医生越来越接受行 D1 以上淋巴结清扫术的重要性,东方外科医生也接受了行 D2 以上淋巴结清扫术并不能提高生存率且会增加发病率的事实。因此,东西方方法都倾向于将 D2 淋巴结清扫术作为标准术式,在这个问题上,我们似乎正在协调一致。