Medicina 2025, 61(7), 1284; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61071284 - 16 Jul 2025
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Gastric cancer treatment of partial or complete gastrectomy includes lymph nodes dissection (D2) to remove microscopic lymph node metastases adjacent to the tumor. A more extensive approach, an extended dissection (D2plus) has recently been employed, which includes resection of
[...] Read more.
Background and Objectives: Gastric cancer treatment of partial or complete gastrectomy includes lymph nodes dissection (D2) to remove microscopic lymph node metastases adjacent to the tumor. A more extensive approach, an extended dissection (D2plus) has recently been employed, which includes resection of the lymph nodes in the pancreatic and periportal areas. However, despite its potential benefits of longer survival for patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, there are increased risks due to surgical complications. The current study aims to examine the balance between clinical benefit and higher risks of the extended dissection approach versus standard dissection. Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis of gastric cancer patients treated in Bnai-Zion medical center examined the survival rates, oncological outcomes, and complication rates according to medical records data files. Results: The D2plus group experienced increased postoperative complications rate (56% vs. 20.6% D2 group p = 0.005) with mean survival time, shorter than the D2 standard approach (2.07 years vs. 3.44 years p = 0.01). A higher number of lymph nodes was removed on average in the D2plus group (29.4 ± 11.2), but without statistical significance in comparison to the D2 group (22.6 ± 8.9, p = 0.013). D2plus patients had reduced disease recurrence rates (20% vs. 32.4% in D2 group p = 0.29). Weight loss of D2plus patients was noted for higher rates than the D2 group (40% vs. 17.6% p = 0.056. Conclusions: Our study provides preliminary insights into the comparison between D2 and D2plus dissection in a single-center Western cohort. However, significant baseline differences between groups, particularly age, gender, and histopathological characteristics, limit definitive conclusions. The findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than practice-changing. Larger, prospective, multicenter studies with propensity score matching or randomized design are needed to definitively establish the optimal surgical approach for different patient subgroups.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Gastroenterology & Hepatology)
