Next Article in Journal
Post-COVID-19 Symptoms and Heart Disease: Incidence, Prognostic Factors, Outcomes and Vaccination: Results from a Multi-Center International Prospective Registry (HOPE 2)
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Non-Obstructive Azoospermia in Men Using Gut Microbial Profiling
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Overweight and Obesity on Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of a Single-Institution Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/jcm12020704
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Survival Outcomes of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Danny Conde Monroy
1,2,3,*,
Milciades Ibañez-Pinilla
1,2,4,
Juan Carlos Sabogal
1,
Carlos Rey Chaves
5,
Andrés Isaza-Restrepo
1,2,
Felipe Girón
2,
Marco Vanegas
2,
Rafael Ibañez-Villalba
4,
Lutz Mirow
6 and
Timo Siepmann
3,7
1
Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario Mayor—Méderi, Bogota 110111, Colombia
2
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota 111221, Colombia
3
Division of Health Care Sciences, Dresden International University, 01067 Dresden, Germany
4
Faculty of Medicine, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogota 110131, Colombia
5
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota 110231, Colombia
6
Department of Surgery, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Medical Campus Chemnitz, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 09116 Chemnitz, Germany
7
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(2), 704; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020704
Submission received: 11 December 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2023 / Published: 16 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Treatment of Gastroesophageal Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) is a contraindication for surgical treatment in current guidelines. However, the results of recent studies are questioning this paradigm. We assessed survival outcomes and their predictors following hepatectomy for GCLM in a systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2022 according to PRISMA guidelines. We identified 42,160 references in four databases. Of these, 55 articles providing data from 1990 patients fulfilled our criteria and were included. We performed a meta-analysis using random-effects models to assess overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at one, three, and five years post-surgery. We studied the impact of potential prognostic factors on survival outcomes via meta-regression. One, three, and five years after surgery, OS was 69.79%, 34.79%, and 24.68%, whereas DFS was 41.39%, 23.23%, and 20.18%, respectively. Metachronous presentation, well-to-moderate differentiation, small hepatic tumoral size, early nodal stage, R0 resection, unilobar compromisation, and solitary lesions were associated with higher overall survival. Metachronous presentation, smaller primary tumoral size, and solitary metastasis were linked to longer DFS. The results of our meta-analysis suggest that hepatectomy leads to favorable survival outcomes in patients with GCLM and provides data that might help select patients who will benefit most from surgical treatment.

1. Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is responsible for 1 in every 12 deaths globally. It represents approximately 8% of cancer-related deaths and is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1,2]. In the surgical treatment of GC, complete resection, lymph node dissection, and neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy are the goals for improved survival time [3,4,5,6]. However, despite advances in prevention and treatment strategies, the prognosis has only been modestly improved [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. In Western countries such as the United Kingdom, the majority of gastric cancer cases are detected at an advanced stage. Only 30% of patients are eligible for treatment with curative intent, mainly due to metastatic spread [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The liver, bones, and peritoneum are the most common sites where metastases spread [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) are often multifocal, bilobar, or accompanied by simultaneous extrahepatic metastases such as peritoneal lesions or extensive lymph node compromise [27]. The incidence of GCLM ranges from 5% to 9% [28]. They are synchronous (before, during, or within 6 months after gastrectomy) in 3% to 14% of patients and metachronous (6 months or later after gastrectomy) in up to 37% [29]. Current Western guidelines advise against surgical resection of liver metastases, with the majority of patients instead receiving palliative chemotherapy [25,26,27,28,29,30]. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), liver metastases are classified as IVb disease and are therefore recommended to be managed with systemic chemotherapy [31]. The median overall survival of GC patients with liver metastasis is around 12 months. The most widely used regimens are doublets or triplets with fluoropyrimidines, platinum derivatives, taxanes, or anthracyclines [32,33]. Given the unsatisfactory prognosis associated with systemic therapy, the clinical management of stage IV disease has been changing over the past few years. Advances in systemic therapy and liver surgery safety have driven the expansion of surgical indications for metastatic disease [34]. However, due to a lack of large, well-designed clinical trials, surgery remains limited to individually selected cases of GCLM. Solely in Japanese treatment guidelines, considering surgery with curative intent is recommended when the number of metastatic nodules is small and no other non-curable factors are present [35]. Here, we aimed to review the literature and provide meta-analytic evidence on survival outcomes following hepatectomy for GCLM. Furthermore, we sought to identify potential predictors of beneficial clinical outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PRISMA checklist is shown in the Supplement S1.

2.1. Search Strategy

Two independent reviewers (D.C., C.R.) performed a systematic search of the literature to identify eligible articles. We searched the databases PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar using the following search terms and Boolean operators: “Gastric cancer AND hepatectomy” OR “gastric AND cancer AND liver metastases” OR “gastric AND cancer AND metastasectomy” OR “stomach AND cancer AND liver metastases”, “liver resection”, “hepatectomy”, “carcinoma”, “neoplasm”. We also reviewed the reference list of included articles for eligible papers. The complete search strings for all databases are provided in Supplement S2.

2.2. Study Selection and Data Collection

Publications were included when they met the following eligibility criteria: (i) studies involving humans and available as full-text articles in English published from January 2000 to June 2022; (ii) studies in patients who had hepatectomy for GCLM as an upfront radical resection with simultaneous management of the primary tumor and the liver metastasis, or as a subsequent procedure after primary gastric cancer treatment; (iii) articles reporting data on 1-,3-, and/or 5-year overall survival and/or disease-free survival of GC patients with only liver metastasis treated surgically; (iv) studies where planning of the surgery was based on the intention to achieve R0 resection. We included prospective or retrospective studies that were of observational or interventional nature. We excluded articles reporting on surgery for GCLM with insufficient reporting of outcome data as well as retrospective observations in less than 10 patients.
Two authors (D.C. and C.R.) independently selected studies by screening titles and abstracts and removed duplicates between articles identified across different databases. Subsequently, they interchanged the lists of articles deriving from their searches to compare the lists in a consensus-based approach. In the case of contradictions between the reviewers, a third reviewer (F.G.) was involved to establish consensus. Afterward, an investigator (D.C.) extracted relevant data from included articles and entered these data into a Microsoft Excel® version 16.6 database.

2.3. Data Synthesis and Quality Assessment

Statistical analysis was performed using the Medcalc® software package (Version 20.110, MedCalc Software Ltd., Acacialaan 22, 8400 Ostend, Belgium). A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
We calculated one-, three-, and five-year OS and DFS as the proportion of patients being alive and free from the tumor, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) and estimated standard errors with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to assess the association between potential prognostic factors and OS and DFS. HRs and their variance were obtained from the studies or calculated according to the data presentation: annual mortality rates, survival curves, number of deaths, or percentage freedom from death. A random-effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis assuming differences in the treatment effect. Forest plots were generated to illustrate the results of the meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed with Egger and Begg tests and through funnel plots for graphical inspection. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed using the Cochran Q test and/or the Higgins test (I2 statistic to measure the degree of variation not attributable to chance alone). Heterogeneity was graded as low (I2 < 25%), moderate (I2 = 25% to 75%), or high (I2 > 75%). We carried out a meta-regression including variables with a potentially prognostic association with survival outcomes. Models of meta-regression were built with one covariate at the time. We extracted data of sufficient quantity to conduct a meta-regression for age, N stage, time presentation, lobar compromise, number of lesions, size of the metastasis, and kind of hepatectomy for OS. By contrast, we were not able to perform a meta-regression for DFS due to the limited no availability of sufficient data. However, not enough data were obtained to perform a regression with all the factors. Additionally, a regression on the number of patients and year of publication was performed. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Two raters (D.C. and C.R.) assessed study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale independently (36). Afterward, results were compared and a third rater (F.G.) was involved to achieve consensus where necessary.

3. Results

A total of 42,160 references were obtained by the initial electronic search: 9531 from PubMed, 264 from Cochrane, 22,480 from Google Scholar, and 9885 from Embase. Upon removal of duplicates, 183 papers were eligible for review of their abstracts and full texts. By applying our selection criteria, we included 55 suitable papers into our systematic review and meta-analysis of a total of 1990 patients who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. All of the included studies were retrospective, and thus none of them had an interventional or prospective observational design. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the main characteristics of the included studies. Figure 1 depicts the flow of information through the phases of our systematic review.

3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

All of the included articles report results from retrospective cohort studies. Study quality analysis using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment showed that all of the included studies were of high quality and had a low risk of bias. Table 3 depicts the Newcastle–Ottawa classification.
Of the 55 included articles, 42 studies (76%) were conducted in Asian populations and 13 (24%) in Western countries. In all the studies involved, the indications for hepatectomy were good control of the primary tumor, no disseminated disease, and the feasibility of achieving R0 resection.

3.2. Characteristics of the Patients

The median age of our synthesized population was 64 years (range: 54–74 years), and the coefficient of variation was 7.1%. Men constituted 74.2% (n = 1385) and women 25.8% (n = 481) of the entire population. All patients had undergone surgery for primary GC either in a previous intervention or in the current intervention. All patients were treated with surgery for GCLM, either a synchronous resection in 1215 patients or a meta-chronous resection in 690 cases. The T classification was divided into two groups: the T1–T2 group consisted of 36.79% of the cases, and the T3–T4 group of 61.26%. The histology was classified according to the differentiation as well-differentiated (48.5%), moderately differentiated (38.1%), and poorly differentiated (33.9%). With respect to nodal compromise, 22.5% of patients were classified as N 0–1 and 38.5% as N 2–3. Of the entire population, 739 (37.13%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 159 (7.9%) received preoperative chemotherapy. Of all included articles (n = 55), 23 reported data on resection margins. In these studies, overall, 1070 cases had reported R0 resection margins, whereas they were R1 on pathologic analysis in 129 cases. Of the entire synthesized population, unilobar resection of metastasis was performed in 34.5% (n = 687) of patients, whereas multilobar resection was performed in 10.6% (n = 210). Solitary lesions were resected in 45.6% of cases (n = 908), whereas resections of multiple lesions were performed in 26.2% of cases (n = 522). The mean size of the hepatic lesions resected was 3.12 cm (range: 2–5.5 cm). A minor hepatectomy was performed in 54.37% (n = 1082) of the population. By contrast, a major hepatectomy was undertaken in only 18.49% (n = 368) of patients. The mean follow-up in the included studies was 34.6 months (range: 8.9–90.8 months).

3.3. Mortality at 30 Days

The mortality rate at 30 days was 1.37% in the synthesized population. The data reported were insufficient to describe the operative complication subtypes and co-morbidities associated with complications.

3.4. Survival Outcomes

3.4.1. Overall Survival at 1 Year

Of the 55 included articles, 45 (81.8%) reported OS in the first year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled OS rate was 69.8% (CI 95%: 65.5%, 73.8%) with moderate heterogeneity and random effect size (I2 = 69.50%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.9057) and Egger (p = 0.9057) tests nor on inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 2).

3.4.2. Overall Survival at 3 Years

Of the 55 included articles, 44 (80%) reported OS in the third year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled OS rate was 34.8% (CI 95%: 30.7%, 38.9%) with a random effect size of and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 65.7%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.85) or Egger (p = 0.90) tests nor on the inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 3).

3.4.3. Overall Survival at 5 Years

Of the 55 included articles, 48 (87.2%) reported OS in the fifth year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled OS rate was 24.7% (CI 95%: 21.3%, 28.1%) with random effect size and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 62.4%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.0997) and Egger (p = 0.2975) tests nor on inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 4).

3.4.4. Disease-Free Survival at 1 Year

Of the 55 included articles, 16 (29%) reported DFS in the fifth year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled DFS rate was 41.4% (CI 95%: 34.4%, 48.5%) with a random effect size and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 69.5%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.4421) and Egger (p = 0.5197) tests nor on inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 5).

3.4.5. Disease-Free Survival at 3 Years

Of the 55 included articles, 14 (25.4%) reported DFS in the third year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled DFS rate was 23.2% (CI 95%: 18.2%, 28.7%) with random effect size and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 59%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.2259) and Egger (p = 0.0893) tests nor on inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 6).

3.4.6. Disease-Free Survival at 5 Years

Of the 55 included articles, 16 (29%) reported DFS in the fifth year after hepatectomy for GCLM. The pooled DFS rate was 20.2% (CI 95%: 14.3%, 26.7%), with random effect size and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 74.6%, heterogeneity test Q, p < 0.0001). There was no evidence of publication bias, neither on Begg (p = 0.8571) and Egger (p = 0.5429) tests nor on inspection of the funnel plot (Figure 7).

3.5. Prognostic Factors

In the meta-analysis of the risk factors, we found an association between improved OS and the following factors: R0 resection, small diameter of the metastasis, resection of a solitary lesion, unilobar localization, low node compromise, early T stage of the primary tumor, well-to-moderate differentiation grade, and metachronous presentation. In relation to DFS, the factors associated with improved DFS were a metachronous presentation, solitary lesions, and an early T stage (Table 4).

3.6. Meta-Regression

The results of the meta-regression are shown in Table 5. Multivariate models were not constructed due to a large amount of missing data. Among all variables tested, only synchronous presentation displayed a prognostic association with higher OS (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The major finding of this systematic review and meta-analysis is that hepatectomy results in beneficial rates of both overall survival and disease-free survival when assessed one, three, and five years post-surgery. The survival outcomes observed at these time points were 69.79%, 34.79%, and 24.68% for OS and 41.39%, 23.23%, and 20.18% for DFS, respectively, with a median survival of 24.5 months. Periprocedural mortality was 1.37%. Our results are in line with previous meta-analyses. The analysis of Petrelli et al. showed a weighted median OS of 22 months at 5 years in 23 studies with 870 patients taken to hepatectomy for GCLM [37]. Another meta-analysis from 2016 assessed 39 studies; the authors described a median survival rate of 68% at 1 year, 31% at 3 years, and 27% at 5 years in GCLM patients [38]. These survival outcomes are consistent with our analysis and differ substantially from those reported with systemic therapy using epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOX) in the REAL3 randomized controlled phase III trial at 1 year of 46%, and with a median survival of 11.3 months [39].
Metastatic gastric cancer has long been considered an aggressive disease, and therefore not suitable for surgery [32]. Current guidelines do not support surgery for GCLM [31]. Moreover, there is widespread skepticism about performing surgery in these cases [40]. A survey applied to surgeons in Europe and Japan found that for metachronous GCLM, most of the specialists (50.4%) prefer preoperative chemotherapy followed by liver resection, whereas 30.3% preferred chemotherapy alone and 36% preferred alternative treatments such as ablative radiofrequency ablation (RFA) alone or RFA with chemotherapy [40]. Some of the reasoning for performing surgery on GCLM patients is inspired by the results of research on colorectal LM. In 1439 patients with hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis, Adam et al. described survival rates of 33% and 23% at 5 and 10 years, respectively [41]. Recently, a multicenter retrospective review was conducted on 144 patients who underwent hepatectomy in synchronous and metachronous settings. They identified a median OS of 12 months [42]. Historically, OS has been the most commonly used metric for judging the success of treatment [43]. The main disadvantage of this measure is the need for extended follow-up and the potentially diluted death measurement due to other nonmalignant causes. DFS has emerged as a potential candidate for a surrogate of OS in various malignant diseases [43,44,45]. It may complement OS in the measurement of survival outcomes. However, reports of DFS in the literature are scarce. Only 16 out of the 55 articles included in our review reported DFS. A review of studies on a total of 1573 patients who underwent hepatic resection described 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS of 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively [46]. Survival is dependent on multiple recognized demographic, tumoral, and metastatic prognostic factors (see Table 3) [43]. Among the primary tumor characteristics, histologic type, serosal invasion, N-stage, and metachronous presentation are prognostic factors (p < 0.05) [32,47]. Tiberio et al. [48] recently demonstrated that T stage, R0 resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy administration are independent factors of OS. T stage ≥ 3, high nodal compromise (N2–3), and poor differentiation were identified as negative prognostic factors for both synchronous and metachronous metastases in their study. They conclude that these patients should be carefully evaluated before hepatic resection is proposed. In this meta-analysis, not achieving an R0 resection margin was associated with the worst prognosis (HR4.04 IC:2.73–7.08, p < 0.001). Even in the face of the worst prognosis of bilobar compromise and the size of the lesion, a propensity score analysis of 119 patients who received multidisciplinary treatments for liver metastasis showed that in the presence of an R0 resection, the distribution and number of liver metastases do not affect the prognosis [49]. Our synthesized analysis highlights the prognostic value of solitary resection over multiple lesions. However, liver resection is not clearly limited to a specific number of metastases. Some reports showed the benefit of resecting 1–3 metastases, and even multiple lesions cannot be considered exclusion criteria for surgery [50].
Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies are fundamental in treating advanced GC patients. Any progression during chemotherapy is probably the most relevant contraindication for surgery [46]. Naturally, the use of systemic therapy has improved in recent years, and it seems appropriate to discuss the role of preoperative chemotherapy to increase survival. The FLOT3 trial evaluated the benefit of a regimen of FLOT (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) followed by surgery and confirmed the potential OS gained [51]. In our review, neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration data were insufficient for inclusion in our analyses. Preoperative chemotherapy was less frequently administered than postoperative chemotherapy in the cohorts we analyzed. In our review, only four studies reported hazard ratios for adjuvant chemotherapy.
Currently, no prospective data exist about the comparison between non-resectional management and surgical management in patients with GCLM. Most of the studies in this review have no systemic therapy arm [52]. Shinohara et al. retrospectively compared OS in 22 patients receiving surgery in GCLM to 25 patients who did not receive surgery and found a significant difference between the groups (median survival time: 22 vs. 7 months, respectively, p = 0.001) [53]. Despite the benefits of gastrectomy plus hepatectomy over non-resectional management in patients with GCLM, it must be pointed out that all data came from retrospective studies and systematic reviews.
The use of targeted therapies has increased given the advances in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of GC. Currently, the most studied therapy is related to HER2 expression. While early studies disagreed on the prognostic relevance of HER status, recent evidence highlights its value [54,55]. In 2010, the Toga Study evaluated the use of the HER2-targeted monoclonal antibody trastuzumab with standard chemotherapy in 584 patients. The addition of trastuzumab increased the median survival in HER2 positive patients to 13.8 months compared to 11.1 months with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60–0.91, p = 0.0046)) [56]. More recent trials support the use of targeted therapy in HER2 patients (Keynote 811 and Destiny Gastric 01) [57]. However, the therapy has some drawbacks: HER2 expression in gastric cancer is only around 9–38%, the antibody shows high heterogeneity, the benefit is more evident in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and there are different testing methods for HER2 measurement (2). Moreover, in GCLM, the evidence is limited. From the studies evaluated, only 1 study discriminated HER2 patients and received trastuzumab associated with chemotherapy [58]. A study performed in 94 patients with GCLM found no relevance of HER2 positivity as an independent prognostic factor (HR 0.918, IC: 0.185–4.5), but the analysis seems to be affected by the underpowered sample [59]. Future studies should include this as a potential prognostic factor.
The relevant difference between synchronous and metachronous diseases may be related to the insufficient data in the literature on metachronous cases. This may be explained by the difficulty in finding patients with potential surgical indications, tumoral aggressiveness, or, in most cases, the simultaneous spread of metastases. In a 2017 retrospective cohort study, the authors compared the outcomes of 653 patients with metachronous disease; 34 were treated surgically, while 619 were treated non-surgically. In this study, surgically treated patients displayed higher survival outcomes than non-surgically treated patients (1YOS: 73.5% vs. 19.7%, 3YOS: 36.9% vs. 6.6%, 5YOS: 24.53% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001) [60]. Cui et al. found the metachronous hepatectomy to be a favorable factor for OS, but the number of liver metastases was not [61]. Overall, a metachronous presentation was associated with improved OS in this study. On the other hand, in this study’s meta-regression, synchronous presentation was associated with better OS in the first year. In addition to survival differences between metachronous and synchronous presentations, Tatsubayashi et al. described postoperative complications as more common in patients with synchronous GCLM compared to metachronous disease. The length of hospital stay in these patients was also prolonged (p = 0.003) [62].
This work contributes to the growing evidence supporting hepatectomy for GCLM. It has strengths. Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide synthesized analyses of a large population of patients with GCLM, complementing and partially exceeding the scope of previous reviews. It supports the value of DFS as a complementary marker of survival in GC patients. However, our analysis is limited by the retrospective nature of the included studies. Thus, selection bias and institutional bias cannot be ruled out.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis in a large population of patients with GCLM indicate that hepatectomy leads to favorable survival outcomes in these patients. While our analysis provides data that might help select patients who will benefit most from surgical treatment, large, well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations. Based on our analysis and the current literature, we advocate using DFS as a complementary survival outcome parameter in research on GC.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12020704/s1, Supplement S1: PRISMA checklist [63]. Supplement S2: Search string strategy.

Author Contributions

D.C.M. conceived the research idea. C.R.C., F.G., M.V., J.C.S. and R.I.-V. made substantial contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data. M.I.-P. performed statistical analysis and data interpretation. D.C.M., C.R.C., A.I.-R., J.C.S., T.S. and L.M. gave the final corrections and approval to the manuscript All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This work was part of a master’s thesis for the Master’s Program in Clinical Research by Dresden International University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oki, E.; Tokunaga, S.; Emi, Y.; Kusumoto, T.; Yamamoto, M.; Fukuzawa, K.; Takahashi, I.; Ishigami, S.; Tsuji, A.; Higashi, H.; et al. Surgical treatment of liver metastasis of gastric cancer: A retrospective multicenter cohort study (KSCC1302). Gastric Cancer 2016, 19, 968–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Guggenheim, D.E.; Shah, M.A. Gastric cancer epidemiology and risk factors. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 107, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Li, G.Z.; Doherty, G.M.; Wang, J. Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer: A Review. JAMA Surg. 2022, 157, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Eslick, G.D.; Lim, L.L.; Byles, J.E.; Xia, H.H.; Talley, N.J. Association of Helicobacter pylori infection with gastric carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1999, 94, 2373–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Smyth, E.C.; Nilsson, M.; Grabsch, H.I.; van Grieken, N.C.; Lordick, F. Gastric cancer. Lancet 2020, 396, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Joossens, J.V.; Hill, M.J.; Elliott, P.; Stamler, R.; Stamler, J.; Lesaffre, E.; Dyer, A.; Nichols, R.; Kesteloot, H.; on behalf of European Cancer Prevention (Ecp) and the Intersalt Cooperative Research Group. Dietary salt, nitrate and stomach cancer mortality in 24 countries. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1996, 25, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shikata, K.; Kiyohara, Y.; Kubo, M.; Yonemoto, K.; Ninomiya, T.; Shirota, T.; Tanizaki, Y.; Doi, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Oishi, Y.; et al. A prospective study of dietary salt intake and gastric cancer incidence in a defined Japanese population: The Hisayama study. Int. J. Cancer 2006, 119, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smyth, E.C.; Capanu, M.; Janjigian, Y.Y.; Kelsen, D.K.; Coit, D.; Strong, V.E.; Shah, M.A. Tobacco Use Is Associated with Increased Recurrence and Death from Gastric Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 2088–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Correa, P. Gastric Cancer: Overview. Gastroenterol. Clin. 2013, 42, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barra, W.F.; Sarquis, D.P.; Khayat, A.S.; Khayat, B.C.M.; Demachki, S.; Anaissi, A.K.M.; Ishak, G.; Santos, N.P.C.; dos Santos, S.E.B.; Burbano, R.R.; et al. Gastric Cancer Microbiome. Pathobiology 2021, 88, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Johnston, F.M.; Beckman, M. Updates on Management of Gastric Cancer. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 21, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Maconi, G.; Manes, G.; Porro, G.B. Role of symptoms in diagnosis and outcome of gastric cancer. World J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 14, 1149–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mocellin, S.; Pasquali, S. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peng, C.-W.; Wang, L.-W.; Zeng, W.-J.; Yang, X.-J.; Li, Y. Evaluation of the staging systems for gastric cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 108, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marrelli, D.; Polom, K.; de Manzoni, G.; Morgagni, P.; Baiocchi, G.L.; Roviello, F. Multimodal treatment of gastric cancer in the west: Where are we going? World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 7954–7969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Karimi, P.; Islami, F.; Anandasabapathy, S.; Freedman, N.D.; Kamangar, F. Gastric cancer: Descriptive epidemiology, risk factors, screening, and prevention. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2014, 23, 700–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Cunningham, D.; Allum, W.H.; Stenning, S.P.; Thompson, J.N.; Van de Velde, C.J.; Nicolson, M.; Scarffe, J.H.; Lofts, F.J.; Falk, S.J.; Iveson, T.J.; et al. Perioperative Chemotherapy versus Surgery Alone for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Songun, I.; Keizer, H.; Hermans, J.; Klementschitsch, P.; de Vries, J.; Wils, J.; van der Bijl, J.; van Krieken, J.; van de Velde, C.; The Dutch Gastric Cancer Group (DGCG). Chemotherapy for operable gastric cancer: Results of the Dutch randomised FAMTX trial. Eur. J. Cancer 1999, 35, 558–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schuhmacher, C.; Gretschel, S.; Lordick, F.; Reichardt, P.; Hohenberger, W.; Eisenberger, C.F.; Haag, C.; Mauer, M.E.; Hasan, B.; Welch, J.; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Compared With Surgery Alone for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Stomach and Cardia: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Trial 40954. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 5210–5218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Coccolini, F.; Montori, G.; Ceresoli, M.; Cima, S.; Valli, M.C.; Nita, G.E.; Heyer, A.; Catena, F.; Ansaloni, L. Advanced gastric cancer: What we know and what we still have to learn. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 1139–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bang, Y.-J.; Kim, Y.-W.; Yang, H.-K.; Chung, H.; Park, Y.-K.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, K.-W.; Kim, Y.H.; Noh, S.-I.; Cho, J.Y.; et al. Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): A phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012, 379, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sasako, M.; Sakuramoto, S.; Katai, H.; Kinoshita, T.; Furukawa, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Nashimoto, A.; Fujii, M.; Nakajima, T.; Ohashi, Y. Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Adjuvant Chemotherapy With S-1 Versus Surgery Alone in Stage II or III Gastric Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 4387–4393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Paoletti, X.; Oba, K.; Burzykowski, T.; Michiels, S.; Ohashi, Y.; Pignon, J.-P.; Rougier, P.; Sakamoto, J.; Sargent, D.; Sasako, M.; et al. Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. JAMA 2010, 303, 1729–1737. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Markar, S.R.; Mackenzie, H.; Mikhail, S.; Mughal, M.; Preston, S.R.; Maynard, N.D.; Faiz, O.; Hanna, G.B. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer: Outcomes from national series in England. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Riihimaki, M.; Hemminki, A.; Sundquist, K.; Sundquist, J.; Hemminki, K. Metastatic spread in patients with gastric cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 52307–52316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Li, Q.; Zhu, C.-C.; Ni, B.; Zhang, Z.-Z.; Jiang, S.-H.; Hu, L.-P.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.-X.; Huang, P.-Q.; Yang, Q.; et al. Lysyl oxidase promotes liver metastasis of gastric cancer via facilitating the reciprocal interactions between tumor cells and cancer associated fibroblasts. Ebiomedicine 2019, 49, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Liu, Q.; Bi, J.-J.; Tian, Y.-T.; Feng, Q.; Zheng, Z.-X.; Wang, Z. Outcome after Simultaneous Resection of Gastric Primary Tumour and Synchronous Liver Metastases: Survival Analysis of a Single-center Experience in China. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 16, 1665–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Markar, S.R.; Mikhail, S.; Malietzis, G.; Athanasiou, T.; Mariette, C.; Sasako, M.; Hanna, G.B. Influence of Surgical Resection of Hepatic Metastases from Gastric Adenocarcinoma on Long-term Survival: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nishi, M.; Shimada, M.; Yoshikawa, K.; Higashijima, J.; Tokunaga, T.; Kashihara, H.; Takasu, C.; Ishikawa, D.; Wada, Y.; Eto, S. Results of hepatic resection for liver metastasis of gastric cancer—A single center experience. J. Med. Investig. 2018, 65, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luo, Z.; Rong, Z.; Huang, C. Surgery Strategies for Gastric Cancer With Liver Metastasis. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kinoshita, J.; Yamaguchi, T.; Moriyama, H.; Fushida, S. Current status of conversion surgery for stage IV gastric cancer. Surg. Today 2021, 51, 1736–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Montagnani, F.; Crivelli, F.; Aprile, G.; Vivaldi, C.; Pecora, I.; De Vivo, R.; Clerico, M.A.; Fornaro, L. Long-term survival after liver metastasectomy in gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018, 69, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, W.; Liang, H.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Xue, Q.; Zhang, R. Prognostic significance of radical surgical treatment for gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastases. Med. Oncol. 2014, 31, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2021, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Pereson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  37. Petrelli, F.; Coinu, A.; Cabiddu, M.; Ghilardi, M.; Borgonovo, K.; Lonati, V.; Barni, S. Hepatic resection for gastric cancer liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 111, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Long, D.; Yu, P.-C.; Huang, W.; Luo, Y.-L.; Zhang, S. Systematic review of partial hepatic resection to treat hepatic metastases in patients with gastric cancer. Medicine 2016, 95, e5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Waddell, T.; Chau, I.; Cunningham, D.; Gonzalez, D.; Okines, A.F.C.; Wotherspoon, A.; Saffery, C.; Middleton, G.; Wadsley, J.; Ferry, D.; et al. Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): A randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Kataoka, K.; Kinoshita, T.; Moehler, M.; Mauer, M.; Shitara, K.; Wagner, A.D.; Schrauwen, S.; Yoshikawa, T.; Roviello, F.; Tokunaga, M.; et al. Current management of liver metastases from gastric cancer: What is common practice? New challenge of EORTC and JCOG. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Adam, R.; Delvart, V.; Pascal, G.; Valeanu, A.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D.; Giacchetti, S.; Paule, B.; Kunstlinger, F.; Ghémard, O.; et al. Rescue surgery for unresectable colorectal liver metastases downstaged by chemotherapy: A model to predict long-term survival. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 644–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ministrini, S.; Solaini, L.; Cipollari, C.; Sofia, S.; Marino, E.; D’Ignazio, A.; Bencivenga, M.; Tiberio, G.A.M. Surgical treatment of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer. Updat. Surg. 2018, 70, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Oba, K.; Paoletti, X.; Alberts, S.; Bang, Y.-J.; Benedetti, J.; Bleiberg, H.; Catalano, P.; Lordick, F.; Michiels, S.; Morita, S.; et al. Disease-Free Survival as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Adjuvant Trials of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 105, 1600–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Fasslrinner, F.; Schetelig, J.; Burchert, A.; Kramer, M.; Trenschel, R.; Hegenbart, U.; Stadler, M.; Schäfer-Eckart, K.; Bätzel, M.; Eich, H.; et al. Long-term efficacy of reduced-intensity versus myeloablative conditioning before allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia in first complete remission: Retrospective follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018, 5, e161–e169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Benz, S.R.; Feder, I.S.; Vollmer, S.; Tam, Y.; Reinacher-Schick, A.; Denz, R.; Hohenberger, W.; Lippert, H.; Tannapfel, A.; Stricker, I. Complete mesocolic excision for right colonic cancer: Prospective multicentre study. Br. J. Surg. 2023, 110, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Marte, G.; Tufo, A.; Steccanella, F.; Marra, E.; Federico, P.; Petrillo, A.; Maida, P. Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, B.; Wu, Y. Prognostic analysis and liver metastases relevant factors after gastric and hepatic surgical treatment in gastric cancer patients with metachronous liver metastases: A population-based study. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 188, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tiberio, G.; Ministrini, S.; Gardini, A.; Marrelli, D.; Marchet, A.; Cipollari, C.; Graziosi, L.; Pedrazzani, C.; Baiocchi, G.L.; La Barba, G.; et al. Factors influencing survival after hepatectomy for metastases from gastric cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2016, 42, 1229–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, J.; Zhang, K.; Gao, Y.; Xi, H.; Cui, J.; Liang, W.; Cai, A.; Wei, B.; Chen, L. Evaluation of hepatectomy and palliative local treatments for gastric cancer patients with liver metastases: A propensity score matching analysis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 61861–61875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kinoshita, T.; Saiura, A.; Esaki, M.; Sakamoto, H.; Yamanaka, T. Multicentre analysis of long-term outcome after surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 102, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Al-Batran, S.-E.; Homann, N.; Pauligk, C.; Illerhaus, G.; Martens, U.M.; Stoehlmacher, J.; Schmalenberg, H.; Luley, K.B.; Prasnikar, N.; Egger, M.; et al. Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgical Resection on Survival in Patients With Limited Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: The AIO-FLOT3 Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 1237–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, W.; Yu, Y.; Fang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cui, Y.; Shen, K.; Liu, T. Systemic chemotherapy as a main strategy for liver metastases from gastric cancer. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2015, 17, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Shinohara, T.; Maeda, Y.; Hamada, T.; Futakawa, N. Survival Benefit of Surgical Treatment for Liver Metastases from Gastric Cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2015, 19, 1043–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Grieb, B.C.; Agarwal, R. HER2-Directed Therapy in Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Triumphs and Troubles. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2021, 22, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shitara, K.; Bang, Y.-J.; Iwasa, S.; Sugimoto, N.; Ryu, M.-H.; Sakai, D.; Chung, H.-C.; Kawakami, H.; Yabusaki, H.; Lee, J.; et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Positive Gastric Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2419–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bang, Y.J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Feyereislova, A.; Chung, H.C.; Shen, L.; Sawaki, A.; Lordick, F.; Ohtsu, A.; Omuro, Y.; Satoh, T.; et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): A phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 376, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chung, H.C.; Bang, Y.J.; Fuchs, C.S.; Qin, S.K.; Satoh, T.; Shitara, K.; Tabernero, J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Alsina, M.; Cao, Z.A.; et al. First-line pembrolizumab/placebo plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy in HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer: KEYNOTE-811. Future Oncol. 2021, 17, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shirasu, H.; Tsushima, T.; Kawahira, M.; Kawai, S.; Kawakami, T.; Kito, Y.; Yoshida, Y.; Hamauchi, S.; Todaka, A.; Yokota, T.; et al. Role of hepatectomy in gastric cancer with multiple liver-limited metastases. Gastric Cancer 2018, 21, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Jiang, H.; Li, Q.; Yu, S.; Yu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, W.; Cui, Y.; Liu, T. Impact of HER2 expression on outcome in gastric cancer patients with liver metastasis. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2017, 19, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, S.-C.; Lee, C.-H.; Hung, C.-L.; Wu, J.-C.; Chen, J.-H. Surgical resection of metachronous hepatic metastases from gastric cancer improves long-term survival: A population-based study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cui, J.-K.; Liu, M.; Shang, X.-K. Hepatectomy for Liver Metastasis of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Surg. Innov. 2019, 26, 692–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tatsubayashi, T.; Tanizawa, Y.; Miki, Y.; Tokunaga, M.; Bando, E.; Kawamura, T.; Sugiura, T.; Kinugasa, Y.; Uesaka, K.; Terashima, M. Treatment outcomes of hepatectomy for liver metastases of gastric cancer diagnosed using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Gastric Cancer 2016, 20, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 00704 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram depicting the flow of information through the different phases of our systematic review. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Figure 1. Flow diagram depicting the flow of information through the different phases of our systematic review. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Jcm 12 00704 g001
Jcm 12 00704 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot of overall survival at 1 year after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 1-year overall survival.
Figure 2. Forest plot of overall survival at 1 year after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 1-year overall survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g002
Jcm 12 00704 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of overall survival at 3 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 3-year overall survival.
Figure 3. Forest plot of overall survival at 3 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 3-year overall survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g003
Jcm 12 00704 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of overall survival at 5 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 5-year overall survival.
Figure 4. Forest plot of overall survival at 5 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 5-year overall survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g004
Jcm 12 00704 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 1 year after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 1-year disease-free survival.
Figure 5. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 1 year after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 1-year disease-free survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g005
Jcm 12 00704 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 3 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 3-year disease-free survival.
Figure 6. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 3 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 3-year disease-free survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g006
Jcm 12 00704 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 5 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 5-year disease-free survival.
Figure 7. Forest plot of disease-free survival at 5 years after hepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM). Description of the proportion and confidence intervals at 95% in the studies that reported 5-year disease-free survival.
Jcm 12 00704 g007
Table
Table 1. Study characteristics.
Table 1. Study characteristics.
StudyYearNMedian AgeSynchronous (n)Metachronous (n)Ethnicity (n)Male (n)Female (n)N 0–1 (n)N 2–3 (n)T1–T2 (n)T3–T4 (n)Histology: Well Differentiated (n)Histology: Moderately Differentiated (n)Histology: Poorly Differentiated (n)Adj Chemo (n)Neoadj Chemo (n)
Tang20202061191East16410102180012170
Kawahara20202073.5119East137812NR43113200
Gao20195457NRNREast431118362925NRNRNR24NR
Nokana2019106846East917337NRNRNR00
Nishi20181071.764East91NRNR812NRNRNR83
Ministrini20181446811232West94504868239313NR223220
Shirashu201897463East81NRNRNRNR9NR03NR
Ryu201714NRNRNREast00NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Lee2017759.2NRNREast52NRNRNRNRNRNRNR60
Song201796635937East72242868475962NR34580
Li SC20173462NR34East2311NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Oguro20162669.5620West233NR8818810815NR
Tatsubayashi201628721513East2353258202206123
Markar20167865780West1451NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Guner201668612642West56123236175245NR23660
Tiberio GA2016105687431West713436403846NRNRNR29NR
Shinohara20152266.7139East193NRNRNR318NR4166
Tiberio20155268520West00NRNRNRNRNRNRNR220
Kinoshita201525664106150East207495420474NR173NRNR8445
Liu20153556350West2213NRNR6291421000
Ohkura2015136394East130NRNRNRNRNRNRNR120
Qian Liu2015355635NREast221343162914NR20350
Komeda20142469.5123East2131014177NRNRNR1511
Andreou201447623413East3215NRNRNRNRNRNRNR1616
Aizawa20147466740East5618NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Wang20143964390East2613231683123NR16390
Qiu201325NR250East2234211789NR16144
Chen L2013205420NREast12812861421442020
Baek2013126139East11193399NR16NR
Vigano20131461.595West00NRNRNRNRNRNRNR08
Takemura201264653430East49152242NR4942NR222618
Garancini20122164129West1471911NR88NR13NRNR
Dittmar20121057NRNRWest00NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0
Liu201235NR350East29812231916NRNR25NRNR
Miki20122572169East2321411817NRNRNR100
Shildberg201231651714West2011NRNRNRNRNRNRNR92
Wang20123060300East2731020426NRNRNR300
Tsujimoto2010176698East161125125NRNRNR140
Choi20101465NR14East113NRNRNRNRNRNRNR10NR
Makino H201016NR97East133NRNRNRNR10NR6113
Tibero GAM200911NRNR11West00NRNRNRNRNRNRNR00
Ueda K20091267120East00NRNR2745NRNRNR8NR
Thelen20082464159East1770NR8161716NRNR
Cheon20082259184East184NRNRNRNRNR912NRNR
Morise20081864117East162NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Koga200742642022East30122021NR14NR1813130
Sakamoto200737641621East298NRNR2512NRNRNR60
Roh HR20051161.383East1017NR110241NRNR
Sakamoto200322631210East139NRNRNRNRNRNRNR8NR
Shirabe200336661620East333NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Zacherl20021561.6105West105NRNR54NRNRNRNRNR
Okano K20021969136East13616NR1186NR136NR
Saiura20021060.564East73NRNRNRNRNRNRNR60
Imamura20011765710East152NRNRNRNR575NRNR
Ambiru S200040631822East301010302812NRNRNR130
NR = not reported. N = number of patients analyzed in the study. Synchronous = number of patients with synchronous liver metastases. Ethnicity = “West” for studies conducted in Western countries and “East” for studies conducted in Asian countries. Male = number of male patients. N 0–1,2–3 = number of patients with lymph-node involvement of primary cancer in the four different stages (0–3). T = number of patients with stage T1–T4. Histology defines the differentiation grade of the primary tumor. Adjuvant chemo and Neoadj chemo = number of patients who were administered adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Table
Table 2. Metastasis characteristics and survival outcomes.
Table 2. Metastasis characteristics and survival outcomes.
StudyYearR0 (n)Unilobar (n)Multilobar (n)Solitary (n)Multiple (n)Diameter (cm)Size of the Lesion < 3 (n)Minor Hepatectomy (n)Major Hepatectomy (n)30-Day Mortality (n)1 DFS (%)3 DFS (%)5 DFS (%)Median DFS (Months)Median Follow-up (Months)1 YOS (%)3 YOS (%)5 YOS (%)Median Survival (Months)
Tang2020NR1731642.9NRNRNR3NR23.5NRNRNRNR23.5NR20
Hara2020NRNRNR1192.514NRNR035241810.5778055.531.752
Gao2019NRNRNR3816NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR77.83725.929.3
Nokana2019NRNRNR73NRNRNRNRNR44.422.222.2NRNR7833.322.230
Nishi201810NRNR642.3555071.1NRNR4012.471.117.8NR24.5
Ministrini2018117NRNRNRNRNRNR132123NRNRNRNRNR49.919.411.612
Shirashu2018954092.5NR180NRNRNR7.947.9NRNRNR24.8
Ryu2017NRNRNRNRNR4.2NR770NRNRNRNRNR84.651.351.3NR
Lee2017NR6152NRNRNRNRNRNRNR8074.1NRNRNR68.667.5
Song20179157294254NRNR61350NRNRNRNR3387.547.621.734
Li SC2017NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR73.536.924.526.1
Oguro2016NRNRNR16103.7NRNRNRNR50.923.123.1437771.341.813.925
Tatsubayashi2016282082082.4NR2710NRNR294726NRNR3249
Markar2016NRNRNRNRNRNRNR661210NRNRNRNRNR64.14238.5NR
Guner2016NR60845232.7604721149.330.426NRNR79.140.63024
Tiberio GA201689NRNRNRNRNRNR941114820.28.610NR58.220.313.114.6
Shinohara2015NR1751111NRNRNRNR042262622NR86262622
Tiberio201552NRNRNRNRNRNR38140NRNRNRNRNR50.4149.313
Kinoshita2015230NRNR168883NR18373243.632.430.19.46577.341.931.131.3
Liu201532305278NR242960NRNRNRNR40NRNR14.333
Ohkura2015NRNRNR49NRNRNRNR0NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Qian Liu201532305278NRNR2960NRNRNRNR4158.121.714.333
Komeda2014NRNRNR177NRNR11130NRNRNRNRNR78.340.140.122.3
Andreou2014413314NRNR2NR34130522919NR7170372418
Aizawa201453NRNR3122NRNRNRNR0NRNRNRNR90.8NRNR1713
Wang2014393453182.8NRNRNR030.810.37.7813.956.417.910.314
Qiu2013NR21419621319605622.311.118429670.429.438
Chen L2013NR1198124.1NR6140NRNRNRNR9.975201522.3
Baek201311111111NRNR930NRNRNRNR12.565NR3931
Vigano2013NR18295NRNR860NRNRNRNR42.59563.233.252.3
Takemura201255NRNR3727NRNR50140422727927845037
Garancini2012191651293NR1740512514NR21.6683119
Dittmar2012NRNRNRNRNR2.6NR820NRNRNRNR40.3NRNR27
Liu2012NR12231223NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR3858.121.7NR15
Miki2012NR2051872NRNRNRNRNRNRNR5NR73.942.836.733.4
Shildberg201223301NRNRNRNR21102NRNRNRNRNRNRNR13NR
Wang2012NR2732283.7NR2370NRNRNRNR1143.316.716.711
Tsujimoto2010171351344.8NR1160NRNRNRNR29.37537.531.534
Choi2010NR11395NRNR86NR28.5NRNRNR15.256738.3NRNR
Makino H2010NR11597NR8NRNRNRNRNRNRNR15.982.346.42538
Tibero GAM2009NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1981302023
Ueda K2009NRNRNRNRNRNRNR8NRNRNRNRNRNR8.9806060NR
Thelen2008171861865.5NR1681331010NR1838161018
Cheon2008222111842.4NRNRNR1NRNRNRNR15.57732.422.817
Morise2008NR153144NRNR144NRNRNRNRNRNR56.336.527.313
Koga200736NRNR2913NR20NRNRNRNRNRNRNR1676484234
Sakamoto20073230721163.8NR3250NRNRNRNRNRNR461131
Roh HR2005NR110110NRNR101025NR12.581972.2NR27.319
Sakamoto2003NR1751663NR1930NRNRNRNR1776.238.338.321.4
Shirabe2003NRNRNR315NRNRNRNR0NRNRNRNRNR642626NR
Zacherl2002NR10486NR72130NRNRNRNR5135.714.3NR15.7
Okano K2002NR1271093.9NR16NR0NRNRNRNR3677343421
Saiura2002NR7346NRNRNRNR3NRNRNRNRNR50302025
Imamura20011512589NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR2460250NR
Ambiru S2000NR24161921NRNR21190NRNRNRNR8871.1NR1812
NR = not reported. R0 = number of patients who achieved an R0 surgical removal on both primary cancer and liver metastases. Unilobar and multilobar = number of patients with unilobar or multilobar liver involvement. Solitary or multiple = number of patients with solitary or multiple liver metastases. Diameter =diameter in cm of liver metastasis. Size of the lesion = divided in size < or > to 3 cm. major or minor hepatectomy = defined as the number of patients with hepatectomy of 4 or more segments (major) or <4 segments (minor). 30-day mortality = number of patients dead after 30 days of surgery. 1 DFS = percentage of patient’s disease free at 1 year. 3 DFS = percentage of patient’s disease free at 3 years. 5 DFS = percentage of patient’s disease free at 5 years. median DFS = months of disease-free survival. Median F.U. = median follow-up time in years. 1 YOS = percentage of patients surviving at 1 year. 3 YOS = percentage of patients surviving at 3 years. 5 YOS = percentage of patients surviving at 5 years. median survival = median survival in months.
Table
Table 3. Study quality rating via the Newcastle–Ottawa scale [36].
Table 3. Study quality rating via the Newcastle–Ottawa scale [36].
StudyYearQuality of the Study SelectionComparabilityOutcomeQuality Score NOS Final
Tang20204239
Kawahara20204228
Gao20193238
Nokana20194239
Nishi20183238
Ministrini20184239
Shirashu20184239
Ryu20174239
Lee20174239
Song20174239
Li SC20174239
Oguro20163227
Tatsubayashi20164239
Markar20163238
Guner20164239
Tiberio GA20163238
Shinohara20154239
Tiberio20154228
Kinoshita20154239
Liu20154239
Ohkura20154239
Qian Liu20154228
Komeda20144228
Andreou20144228
Aizawa20143238
Wang20143238
Qiu20134239
Chen L20134239
Baek20133238
Vigano20133238
Takemura20124228
Garancini20124228
Dittmar20124228
Liu20124239
Miki20124239
Shildberg20123238
Wang20123238
Tsujimoto20104239
Choi20103238
Makino H20104239
Tibero GAM20094239
Ueda K20094239
Thelen20083238
Cheon20083238
Morise20083238
Koga20074239
Sakamoto20074239
Roh HR20053238
Sakamoto20034239
Shirabe20034239
Zacherl20024239
Okano K20024239
Saiura20024228
Imamura20013237
Ambiru S20004239
The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale quality rating tool evaluates the selection, comparability, and outcome of a study with a possible maximum score of 9 points. Studies scoring 7–9 points are considered high quality, 4–6 points high risk of bias, and 0–3 points very high risk of bias.
Table
Table 4. Prognostic associations with survival outcomes.
Table 4. Prognostic associations with survival outcomes.
Overall SurvivalDisease-Free Survival
Prognostic FactorHazard RatioHeterogeneityp ValueHazard RatioHeterogeneityp Value
Age1.06 (0.79–1.42)64.93%0.6661.39 (0.78–2.45)76.70%0.254
Sex0.99 (0.55–1.7)0%0.998
Metachronous presentation1.48 (1.15–1.89)55%0.0021.50 (1.21–1.86)0%<0.001
Well–moderate differentiation grade1.34 (1.13–1.59)0%0.0011.27 (0.80–2.01)0%0.310
Early T stage (T1–T2)1.66 (1.25–2.21)0%<0.0012.21 (1.19–4.08)41.57%0.011
Low node compromise (0–1)1.60 (1.32–1.95)21.06%<0.001
Unilobar localization1.71 (1.01–2.89)10.7%0.046
Solitary lesions1.57 (1.12–2.18)59.28%0.0082.34 (1.67–3.29)0%<0.001
Small diameter (<3 cm)1.26 (1.06–1.50)49.34%0.0081.81 (0.92–3.56)36.44%0.083
Adjuvant chemotherapy1.66 (0.73–3.76)0%0.221
R0 resection4.04 (2.73–7.08)0%<0.001
Prognostic factors’ hazard ratios on overall survival and disease-free survival, the degree of heterogeneity, and p value.
Table
Table 5. Meta-regression of prognostic associations.
Table 5. Meta-regression of prognostic associations.
VariableNumber of StudiesCoefficientp ValueR2Test for Residual Heterogeneity (I2 = %)
Year of publication450.02460.2130.0067.29
Number of included patients450.00020.9210.0066.83
Age390.00630.8110.0067.70
N stage 2–3230.64920.4240.1071.74
Synchronous presentation42−0.80500.0180.3357.87
Unilobar presentation270.59770.5240.0063.44
Solitary lesions36−0.46720.5530.0059.47
Multiple lesions360.45970.5540.0058.43
Size > 3 cm71.43940.5400.0065.45
Minor hepatectomy29−0.20900.7910.0673.36
Meta-regression based on a random effect size model. R2 identifies the heterogeneity accounted for by the model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Conde Monroy, D.; Ibañez-Pinilla, M.; Sabogal, J.C.; Rey Chaves, C.; Isaza-Restrepo, A.; Girón, F.; Vanegas, M.; Ibañez-Villalba, R.; Mirow, L.; Siepmann, T. Survival Outcomes of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020704

AMA Style

Conde Monroy D, Ibañez-Pinilla M, Sabogal JC, Rey Chaves C, Isaza-Restrepo A, Girón F, Vanegas M, Ibañez-Villalba R, Mirow L, Siepmann T. Survival Outcomes of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(2):704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020704

Chicago/Turabian Style

Conde Monroy, Danny, Milciades Ibañez-Pinilla, Juan Carlos Sabogal, Carlos Rey Chaves, Andrés Isaza-Restrepo, Felipe Girón, Marco Vanegas, Rafael Ibañez-Villalba, Lutz Mirow, and Timo Siepmann. 2023. "Survival Outcomes of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 2: 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020704

APA Style

Conde Monroy, D., Ibañez-Pinilla, M., Sabogal, J. C., Rey Chaves, C., Isaza-Restrepo, A., Girón, F., Vanegas, M., Ibañez-Villalba, R., Mirow, L., & Siepmann, T. (2023). Survival Outcomes of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020704

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop