Published online Mar 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i3.100143
Revised: December 16, 2024
Accepted: January 2, 2025
Published online: March 27, 2025
Processing time: 102 Days and 18.6 Hours
The incidence of gastric cancer in the elderly is increasing; however, standardized surgical approaches are lacking.
To investigate the effects of radical surgery on the trauma response, postoperative complications, and long-term prognosis in elderly patients with gastric cancer.
Between January 2020 and December 2023, 110 gastric cancer patients admitted to the Department of Oncology Jiangnan University Medical Center were cate
Laparoscopic surgery showed superior surgical outcomes compared to the open surgery and control groups (P < 0.05). Trauma indicators were lowest in the lapa
Radical surgery in elderly patients with gastric cancer reduces surgical trauma response, facilitates postoperative recovery, and improves long-term survival rates, albeit with an increased risk of complications. Laparoscopic radical surgery further minimizes postoperative trauma, with no significant difference in complication rates and survival prognosis compared with open radical surgery.
Core Tip: Although elderly patients have reduced surgical tolerance, surgery remains the primary treatment for gastric cancer in this population. Selecting appropriate surgical methods can reduce mortality and enhance the quality of life in elderly patients with gastric cancer.
- Citation: Zhu LL, Shen RZ. Follow-up of elderly gastric cancer post-radical surgery: Trauma, complications, and prognosis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(3): 100143
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i3/100143.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i3.100143
The elderly, characterized by diminished antitumor cell proliferation and immune capabilities, are a high-incidence group for gastric cancer. With the aging of the population, the number of elderly gastric cancer patients has been increas
Patient demographics revealed that the study population consisted of gastric cancer patients treated at the Oncology Department of Jiangnan University Medical Center from January 2020 to December 2023. A total of 110 patients were included in the study after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were categorized into a control group (n = 40) and an observation group (n = 70) based on differences in surgical approaches. The observation group was further divided into laparoscopic (n = 45) and open surgery (n = 25) subgroups.
Control group: Male: 19; Female: 21. Age: 67-81 years (mean 75.31 ± 5.54). Tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging: IB-IIA (10 cases), IIB-IIIA (17 cases), and IIIB-IIIC (13 cases). Pathological examination revealed adenocarcinoma (34 cases), mucinous adenocarcinoma (four cases), and signet ring cell carcinoma (two cases).
Open surgery group: Male: 13; Female: 12. Age: 65-83 years (mean 75.55 ± 5.21). Pathology: Adenocarcinoma (20 cases), mucinous adenocarcinoma (4 cases), and signet ring cell carcinoma (1 case). TNM staging: IB-IIIA (15 cases), IIB-IIIA (six cases), and IIIB-IIIC (four cases).
Laparoscopic group: Male: 21; Female: 24. Age: 67-80 years (mean 75.43 ± 5.18). Pathological examination revealed adenocarcinoma (27 patients), mucinous adenocarcinoma (14 patients), and signet ring cell carcinoma (4 patients). The TNM staging: IIB-IIIA (21 cases), IIB-IIIA (17 cases), and IIIB-IIIC (7 cases). No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics among the three groups (P > 0.05), making them eligible for the study.
The inclusion criteria: (1) Diagnosis of gastric cancer according to standard criteria; (2) Age 60 years; (3) No distant metastasis; (4) No previous radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy; (5) No cognitive or communication impairments were observed; and (6) Informed consent was obtained from all patients and their families.
The exclusion criteria: (1) Other concurrent malignancies; (2) Inability to tolerate surgery; (3) Other functional or structural organ impairments; (4) History of abdominal surgery; (5) Immunological disorders; (6) Coagulation dysfunction; and (7) Death from non-tumor-related causes or withdrawal during follow-up.
The control group was treated with palliative surgery: Patients in the control group underwent palliative surgery, which was initiated with the patient in the supine position under general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. A midline laparotomy incision was made, and the tumor location, size, and metastatic status were assessed using a systematic approach from the periphery to the center. Palliative surgical options include resectional techniques such as total, proximal, and distal gastrectomy and non-resectional techniques such as jejunostomy.
The observation group was treated with radical surgery interventions: Open surgery subgroup: Patients who underwent conventional open radical gastrectomy with the same anesthetic and positioning protocols as the control group. An incision from the xiphoid process to the umbilicus allows for exploration and vascular control of the gastric area. The stomach was mobilized and the omentum was transected using electrocautery. Lymph node dissection was performed sequentially, followed by resection of the stomach containing the tumor and anastomosis of the stomach and duodenum using standard techniques, such as Billroth I or II, culminating in routine wound closure.
Laparoscopic group underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The patients were positioned in a supine position with the head lower than the feet, with legs abducted approximately 30° in a ‘big’ character shape, and the left leg was bent in a ‘jackknife’ manner at approximately 15°. Endotracheal intubation was performed and general anesthesia was administered. The skin on the patient’s gastric wall was secured and punctured to create an artificial pneumoperitoneum. Punctures were made at the umbilical hole, 5 mm to the left of the umbilicus, along the anterior axillary line at the costal margin, and at the right midclavicular line (at the same horizontal level as the umbilicus) to serve as operative ports. Ultrasonic scalpels and other instruments were inserted through the surgical ports. Under laparoscopic visualization, the right gastroepiploic vessels were clamped and the left and right gastric arteries were ligated to interrupt the gastric branches. The mesentery and greater omentum were stripped and the lymph nodes were cleared. A 5 cm incision was made in the midline of the patient’s abdomen, and the duodenum was transected. The surgeon used intestinal forceps to grasp the gastric remnant and proximal jejunum and lifted the stomach out of the abdominal cavity. The stomach was transected using a stapler (the transection site was 5 cm from the cancerous lesion). The jejunum was removed from the abdominal cavity and holes were drilled at the mesenteric edge of the greater curve of the stomach and jejunum. A stapler was used to anastomose the stomach and jejunum, followed by routine suturing.
Surgical-related indicators: Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus postoperatively, time to ambulation, and length of postoperative hospital stay were recorded for all three patient groups.
Trauma stress response: Fasting venous blood (5 mL) was collected from patients in all groups preoperatively and 12 hours postoperatively, followed by centrifugation to obtain the serum. Measure serum levels of endothelin (ET), nitric oxide (NO), and C-reactive protein (CRP) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with kits from Shanghai Lanjing Biotech Co., Ltd., strictly according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Complications: Monitor and document the incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups including anastomotic leakage, incision infection, pulmonary infection, dumping syndrome, and intra-abdominal infection.
Long-term prognosis follow-up survey: Follow-up surveys were conducted via telephone and outpatient reviews after patient discharge until recurrence or death. The survival rates of the two groups were recorded at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after discharge.
Data were analyzed using statistical product and service solutions 20.0 software. Quantitative data conforming to a normal distribution are presented as mean ± SD, with t-tests for comparisons and F-tests for multiple group comparisons. Qualitative data are expressed as frequency and percentage n (%), with χ2 tests for analysis; P < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.
Patients in the open laparotomy group exhibited lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter temporal metrics than those in the control group. The laparoscopic group demonstrated intraoperative blood loss lower than that of the open laparotomy group, and the remaining four temporal metrics were at their lowest levels (P < 0.05). See Table 1.
Groups | Cases | Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | Surgery duration (minute) | Postoperative time to first flatus (day) | Time to ambulation (day) | Postoperative hospital stay (day) |
Control | 40 | 398.14 ± 74.21 | 301.25 ± 45.15 | 5.25 ± 1.31 | 3.94 ± 1.21 | 16.91 ± 4.23 |
Open surgery | 25 | 205.13 ± 69.32 | 265.13 ± 37.43 | 4.13 ± 1.15 | 3.06 ± 0.80 | 15.15 ± 3.71 |
Laparoscopic surgery | 45 | 177.31 ± 55.15 | 231.25 ± 27.77 | 3.43 ± 1.02 | 2.87 ± 0.74 | 13.15 ± 3.15 |
F value | 131.998 | 37.756 | 26.156 | 14.486 | 10.973 | |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
In the comparison of stress response indicators among the three groups, the control group exhibited the highest levels of ET, NO, and CRP, while the laparoscopic group showed the lowest levels of stress indicators (P < 0.05). See Table 2.
Groups | Cases (n) | ET (ng/L) | NO (μmol/L) | CRP (mg/L) | |||
Before | After 12 hours | Before | After 12 hours | Before | After 12 hours | ||
Control | 40 | 1.05 ± 0.32 | 1.80 ± 0.58 | 10.08 ± 3.17 | 20.13 ± 3.40 | 21.15 ± 1.21 | 63.12 ± 12.58 |
Open surgery | 25 | 1.04 ± 0.39 | 1.65 ± 0.53 | 10.11 ± 3.15 | 18.05 ± 2.45 | 21.30 ± 1.25 | 59.12 ± 11.37 |
Laparoscopic surgery | 45 | 1.01 ± 0.35 | 1.39 ± 0.51 | 10.03 ± 3.11 | 16.13 ± 2.11 | 21.34 ± 1.18 | 50.10 ± 10.33 |
F value | 0.149 | 6.232 | 0.006 | 22.925 | 0.279 | 14.367 | |
P value | 0.862 | 0.002 | 0.994 | < 0.001 | 0.757 | < 0.001 |
The incidence of complications in the control group was significantly lower than that in both radical surgery groups (P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the open and laparoscopic surgery groups (P > 0.05). See Table 3.
Groups | Cases | Anastomotic fistula | Incision infection | Pulmonary infection | Dumping syndrome | Abdominal infection | Total incidence |
Control | 40 | 2 (5.00) | 3 (7.50) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.50) | 2 (5.00) | 8 (20.00) |
Open surgery | 25 | 3 (12.00) | 4 (16.00) | 1 (4.00) | 2 (8.00) | 4 (16.00) | 14 (56.00) |
Laparoscopic surgery | 45 | 7 (15.56) | 1 (2.22) | 0 (0) | 5 (11.11) | 5 (11.11) | 18 (40.00) |
Control and laparoscopic group χ2/P value | 8.904/0.002 | ||||||
Control and laparoscopic group χ2/P value | 3.989/0.045 | ||||||
Control and laparoscopic χ2/P value | 1.657/0.197 |
At the three postoperative follow-up time points, there was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between the open and laparoscopic groups (P > 0.05). At each of the three follow-up time points, the control group had the lowest survival rates (P < 0.05). See Table 4.
Group | Cases (n) | 6 months post-discharge | 1 year after discharge | 2 years after discharge |
Control | 40 | 36 (90.00) | 28 (70.00) | 22 (55.00) |
Open surgery | 25 | 24 (96.00) | 23 (92.00) | 20 (80.00) |
Laparoscopic surgery | 45 | 44 (97.78) | 41 (91.11) | 34 (75.56) |
Control and open χ2/P value | 0.780/0.377 | 4.406/0.035 | 4.205/0.040 | |
Control and laparoscopic χ2/P value | 2.313/0.128 | 6.176/0.012 | 3.980/0.046 | |
Open and laparoscopic χ2/P value | 0.183/0.668 | 0.016/0.898 | 0.180/0.671 |
China’s aging population has led to an increase in the number of elderly patients with gastric cancer. Despite medical advancements, a universal cure for gastric cancer remains elusive. Surgery, particularly radical surgery, is one of the primary treatments for prolonging life and removing cancerous lesions, and has shown significant efficacy[3]. However, elderly patients often have reduced physical reserves and lower tolerance to surgery, leading to higher risks and prolonged recovery times, which can increase medical costs and potentially reduce prognosis.
This study analyzed 110 elderly patients with gastric cancer who underwent palliative, open radical, or laparoscopic radical surgery. The palliative surgery group exhibited the highest blood loss and longest time indicators (surgery duration, first flatus, ambulation, and hospital stay) (P < 0.05), indicating greater trauma and prolonged recovery compared to the radical surgeries. Radical surgeries employ sharp dissection principles, reducing the handling of vascular branches, thus decreasing blood loss[4]. In contrast, palliative surgeries that do not aim for complete lesion removal involve more extensive dissection of tumor interfaces, which increases blood loss and operation time[5].
Compared with conventional surgical approaches, laparoscopic surgery, aided by visualization through a lens, effectively addresses the technical challenge of obtaining a clear view of the lesion, which is often difficult using traditional methods. The laparoscopic group showed lower stress response indicators than the open group, with the control group showing the highest levels (P < 0.05). ET, NO, and CRP are key indicators of the stress response, with ET and NO levels positively correlated with traumatic stress, and CRP is rapidly released after tissue damage[6-8]. Palliative surgery induces a stronger stress response owing to longer operation times and greater blood loss, whereas laparoscopic radical surgery, which is minimally invasive, reduces surgical trauma and stress levels[9,10].
The palliative surgery group had a lower incidence of complications than the radical surgery groups (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open radical surgery groups (P > 0.05). Palliative surgery, aimed at improving symptoms without complete tumor removal, preserves more vascular tissue, leading to better blood supply, faster mucosal regeneration, and reduced risk of infection[11,12]. Anastomotic leakage, a common complication of gastrointestinal surgery, is mitigated by palliative surgery because of the enhanced blood supply and reduced inflammatory mediator secretion[13]. However, the technical challenges of laparoscopic lymph node dissection and anastomosis may affect the quality of the surgery and increase the risk of complications if not performed correctly.
Studies have increasingly indicated that patients with gastric cancer who undergo radical-intent gastrectomy after responding to several regimens of combined chemotherapy can achieve good survival outcomes. This study found that, compared with radical surgery, the palliative surgery group had lower survival rates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open radical surgery groups (P > 0.05). Radical surgery effectively removes potentially metastatic lymph nodes and infiltrated tissues, thereby reducing the risk of tumor cell spread and residual lesions[14-17].
Palliative surgery in elderly patients with gastric cancer is associated with more severe traumatic impact and extended recovery period. Notably, the incidence of postoperative complications is lower after curative surgery. Conversely, curative surgery is associated with improved long-term survival rates. The use of laparoscopic techniques for curative procedures further mitigate surgical trauma. However, our data indicate that this minimally invasive approach does not significantly influence the rate of postoperative complications or the long-term survival outcomes in these patients. In summary, this study provides specific recommendations and references for clinicians when selecting surgical approaches for elderly patients with gastric cancer, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of this research.
1. | Kubo T, Adachi Y, Mita H, Adachi Y, Iwata N, Yoshida Y, Endo T. Prognosis of Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer Treated with the Best Supportive Care. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2024;55:178-181. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Joharatnam-Hogan N, Shiu KK, Khan K. Challenges in the treatment of gastric cancer in the older patient. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;85:101980. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in RCA: 67] [Article Influence: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
3. | Luo G, Wang X, Li Y, Chen G, Cao Y, Gong J, Li Y. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgery for radical gastrectomy in the treatment of advanced distal gastric cancer: long-term overall and disease-free survival (final results of a single-center study). J Int Med Res. 2021;49:3000605211047700. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in RCA: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
4. | Yalav O, Topal U, Gumus S, Unal AG, Rencuzogullari A. Laparoscopic versus open total radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: surgical outcomes. Ann Ital Chir. 2021;92:609-615. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
5. | Harada K, Zhao M, Shanbhag N, Baba H, Ajani JA. Palliative care for advanced gastric cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2020;20:575-580. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in RCA: 16] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
6. | Chan BYO, Yau KKW, Chan CKO. Totally laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a matched retrospective cohort study. Hong Kong Med J. 2019;25:30-37. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in RCA: 5] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Michinaga S, Hishinuma S, Koyama Y. Roles of Astrocytic Endothelin ET(B) Receptor in Traumatic Brain Injury. Cells. 2023;12. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in RCA: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Sadeghi MA, Hemmati S, Nassireslami E, Yousefi Zoshk M, Hosseini Y, Abbasian K, Chamanara M. Targeting neuronal nitric oxide synthase and the nitrergic system in post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2022;239:3057-3082. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in RCA: 5] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Friend SF, Nachnani R, Powell SB, Risbrough VB. C-Reactive Protein: Marker of risk for post-traumatic stress disorder and its potential for a mechanistic role in trauma response and recovery. Eur J Neurosci. 2022;55:2297-2310. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in RCA: 26] [Article Influence: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Jang H, Scantling D, Allee L, Brahmbhatt TS. Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Surgical Profession. J Surg Res. 2023;292:176-181. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
11. | Liu Q, Ding L, Jiang H, Zhang C, Jin J. Efficacy of fast track surgery in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2018;50:28-34. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in RCA: 15] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | Nevo Y, Morency D, Kammili A, Abdrabo L, Zullo K, Almatar S, Cools-Lartigue J, Ferri L, Mueller C. The Role of Palliative Surgery in Stage IV Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study. J Palliat Care. 2022;37:152-158. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
13. | Park YE. Is vagotomy necessary in palliative surgery for incurable advanced gastric cancer?: a retrospective case-control study. World J Surg Oncol. 2023;21:213. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Seicean RI, Puscasu D, Gheorghiu A, Pojoga C, Seicean A, Dindelegan G. Anastomotic Leakage after Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2023;32:526-535. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Zhang F, Huang X, Song Y, Gao P, Zhou C, Guo Z, Shi J, Wu Z, Wang Z. Conversion Surgery for Stage IV Gastric Cancer. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1158. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in RCA: 18] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Cui P, Zong L, Wei W, Yan XD, Song DY, Hu WQ. [Current status and progress in the standardized surgical management of specimens after radical gastric cancer surgery]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022;25:179-183. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Zeng XY, Xiong Z, Li C, Gao JB, Cai KL, Wang Z, Wang GB, Tao KX, Cai M. [Safety analysis of enhanced recovery after surgery in patients with gastric cancer undergoing radical surgery]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2023;26:199-201. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |