Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06365814 |
Other study ID # |
ERASforNACT |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
October 1, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
April 1, 2024 |
Study information
Verified date |
April 2024 |
Source |
The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Background: Gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are more
vulnerable to perioperative stress. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is widely used in
surgical patients aiming at reducing stress responses. However, whether this approach is safe
and feasible for gastric cancer patients received minimally invasive radical gastrectomy
after NACT remained determined. So, the objective of this study is to investigate the effects
of ERAS for this special group of gastric cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: The data of gastric cancer patients who underwent minimally invasive
radical gastrectomy after NACT were collected in this retrospective cohort study. Patients
were divided into an ERAS group and a conventional group based on whether they received
perioperative ERAS management. Propensity score matching was conducted to eliminate bias.
Pre- and postoperative inflammatory and nutritional marker levels, postoperative
complications, recovery indices and 3-year OS and RFS were observed.
Description:
Patients From January 2015 to October 2020, the data of 390 gastric cancer patients who
underwent laparoscopic or robotic minimally invasive radical gastrectomy after NACT at the
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, were
retrospectively collected and divided into ERAS group and conventional group according to
whether they received perioperative ERAS pathway management.
Perioperative management and follow-up Patients in the conventional group received routine
perioperative care, while patients in the ERAS group received the ERAS management protocol.
Based on clinical practice, we reconsidered the total clauses in the gastric cancer ERAS
pathway and determined that preoperative education, prehabilitation, target-oriented liquid
management, preoperative oral carbohydrate intake, multimodal analgesia, minimally invasive
surgery, physical activity, individual nutritional evaluation and support were the core terms
that are suitable for all patients and should be strictly adhered to. Patients follow-up was
strictly in accordance with Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2021 (6th edition).
NACT and D2 gastrectomy Due to the retrospective design of this study, data from patients who
received CapOx, SOX or other 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimens were collected for
analysis. If patients could not complete preoperative chemotherapy as planned due to severe
adverse events or if preoperative chemotherapy needed to be prolonged for more than 4 cycles
due to unsatisfactory therapeutic efficacy, their data would not be analyzed. If the original
regimens were effective before surgery, they were still administered after surgery. If
disease progressed after preoperative chemotherapy, subsequent regimens were discussed by a
multidisciplinary team. Pre- and postoperative chemotherapy was administered in total of 8
cycles, and this treatment was adjusted according to the patient's disease condition and
tolerance.
All patients underwent surgery approximately 4 weeks after the last cycle of preoperative
chemotherapy. The extent of gastrectomy was determined according to the tumor location, and
the extent of lymph node dissection was strictly in accordance with the D2 standard. The
types of digestive tract reconstruction depended on the tumor site, extent of gastric
resection, experience and surgeon habits. The choice of laparoscopy or DaVinci-assisted
surgery depended on the subjective will of the patients.
Propensity score matching and statistical analysis After excluding patients who did not meet
the inclusion criteria, the ERAS group was matched at a ratio of 1:1 with the conventional
group including the following covariates: age, PLR, LMR, CAR and prealbumin concentration.
SPSS 24.0 was used to perform the match using a 0.2 caliper width.
SPSS 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for the data analysis. The normally distributed
measurement data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x̅±s); the differences between
groups were compared by Student's t test. Measurement data with a nonnormal distribution are
presented as medians (interquartile ranges); the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons
between two groups. Count data are presented as absolute numbers; comparisons between groups
were analyzed using the Chi-square test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for ranked data.
Repeated measures data were analyzed by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA or the generalized
estimating equation. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the
differences in survival rate were compared by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate
analyses of risk factors for RFS and OS were conducted with the Cox proportional hazards
regression model. The cutoff values of the continuous variables were determined using the
median. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model included variables with p
< 0.15 in the univariate analysis. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical
significance.