Kim Hyoung-Il, Seo Hoseok, Hur Hoon, Lee Chang Min, Ahn Sang-Hoon, Park Dong Jin, Suh Yun-Suhk, Jeong Oh, Son Sang-Yong, Jung Mi Ran, Park Young Suk, Kim Dong-Wook, Song Jeong Ho, Lee Yoontaek, Park Ji-Ho, Park Shin-Hoo, Lee Sejin, Kong Seong-Ho, Hwang Sun-Hwi, Kim Jong Won, Lee Han Hong
Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
J Gastric Cancer. 2025 Jul;25(3):437-454. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e34.
This trial (KLASS-12) compares the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPLG) versus conventional 5-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (CPLG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).
This multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma (T1N0M0) at 15 university hospitals in Korea. Participants underwent RPLG or CPLG with at least D1+ lymph node dissection. The primary aim of this study was to verify the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG in terms of postoperative 30-day complications.
From May 2022 to October 2023, 348 patients were randomly assigned to the RPLG and CPLG groups, with 174 patients in each group. After applying the exclusion criteria, 164 and 166 patients from the RPLG and CPLG groups, respectively, were analyzed. Complication rates were 10.4% and 9.2% for the RPLG and CPLG groups, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 10.4% vs. 7.2% in the per-protocol (PP) population. The risk difference was 0.012 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.051 to 0.075) in the ITT population and 0.031 (95% CI, -0.030 to 0.093) in the PP population. These findings verified the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG, with a 10% margin. Additionally, the pain score on postoperative day 5 was significantly lower in the RPLG group (1.6% vs. 1.8%; P=0.028). The 2 groups showed no significant differences in the lymph node yield, conversion rate, or length of hospital stay. RPLG was not an independent risk factor for complications.
RPLG is a feasible and safe alternative for patients with EGC, and its short-term outcomes are not inferior to those of CPLG.
Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0006935.
本试验(KLASS - 12)比较了缩小切口腹腔镜胃切除术(RPLG)与传统五孔腹腔镜胃切除术(CPLG)治疗早期胃癌(EGC)的疗效和安全性。
本多中心、开放标签、随机对照试验纳入了韩国15家大学医院诊断为胃腺癌(T1N0M0)的患者。参与者接受了RPLG或CPLG,并至少进行了D1 + 淋巴结清扫。本研究的主要目的是验证RPLG在术后30天并发症方面不劣于CPLG。
2022年5月至2023年10月,348例患者被随机分配至RPLG组和CPLG组,每组174例。应用排除标准后,分别对RPLG组和CPLG组的164例和166例患者进行了分析。在意向性治疗(ITT)人群中,RPLG组和CPLG组的并发症发生率分别为10.4%和9.2%,在符合方案(PP)人群中分别为10.4%和7.2%。ITT人群中的风险差异为0.012(95%置信区间[CI],-0.051至0.075),PP人群中的风险差异为0.031(95% CI,-0.030至0.093)。这些结果验证了RPLG不劣于CPLG,非劣效界值为10%。此外,RPLG组术后第5天的疼痛评分显著更低(1.6%对1.8%;P = 0.028)。两组在淋巴结收获数量、中转率或住院时间方面无显著差异。RPLG不是并发症的独立危险因素。
RPLG是EGC患者可行且安全的替代方案,其短期结局不劣于CPLG。
临床研究信息服务标识符:KCT0006935。