Log in

Chirurgische Therapie des Magen- und Barrett-Karzinoms

Modulare onkologische Konzepte

Surgical treatment of gastric cancer and Barrett’s carcinoma

Multimodal therapy concepts

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Die Gastroenterologie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die Resektion des Primarius, zumeist im multimodalen Setting, stellt einen wichtigen Bestandteil der kurativen Therapie des Magen- und Barrett-Karzinoms dar. Die Operation kann in spezialisierten Zentren in der Regel vollständig minimal-invasiv angeboten werden, entweder konventionell laparoskopisch/thorakoskopisch oder robotisch assistiert. Tumoren des ösophagogastralen Übergangs stellen besondere chirurgische Herausforderungen dar, wenn bisweilen sowohl ein abdominaler Zugang mit transhiataler Erweiterung als auch eine abdominothorakale Resektion technisch möglich erscheinen und die Wahl der Methode von krankheits- und patientenspezifischen Faktoren abhängt. Bei Magenkarzinomen ist häufig eine partiell organerhaltene Resektion in Kombination mit radikaler Lymphadenektomie möglich, wenn auf interdisziplinäre intraoperative Hilfsmittel, wie Schnellschnittuntersuchung und Endoskopie, zurückgegriffen wird. Die Ösophagektomie ist beim Barrett-Karzinom die Resektion der Wahl und die zunehmende Durchführung in minimal-invasiver Technik hat das Trauma für die Patienten deutlich reduziert und die postoperativen Ergebnisse verbessert. Eine gute Zentrumsstruktur bietet neben intraoperativen interdisziplinären Hilfestellungen und minimal-invasiven Techniken auch eine interventionelle Endoskopie, die für die Vorbereitung der chirurgischen Resektion und eine etwaige Komplikationsbehandlung eine wichtige Rolle spielt. In dieser Übersicht soll die moderne Ösophagus- und Magenchirurgie am Beispiel der Therapie des Magen- und Barrett-Karzinoms und unter Berücksichtigung der aktuellen Studienlage dargestellt werden.

Abstract

Surgical resection of the primary tumor remains a cornerstone in the multimodal curative therapy of gastric cancer and Barrett’s carcinoma. Resection can usually be performed minimally invasively in specialized centers, using either conventional laparoscopic/thoracoscopic or robot-assisted procedures. Tumors of the esophagogastric junction represent a special surgical challenge if a transabdominal approach with transhiatal extension or a thoracoabdominal approach is technically feasible and certain disease- or patient-specific factors need to be considered. In gastric cancer, partial stomach-preserving resection is often possible if interdisciplinary support such as frozen margin investigation and endoscopy is utilized. Esophageal resection is the first-line surgical treatment for Barrett’s carcinoma and the evolving performance of minimally invasive resection minimizes the patient’s trauma and has improved postoperative outcomes in recent years. In specialized centers, in addition to intraoperative interdisciplinary support, interventional endoscopy plays an important role in the preoperative workup and potential postoperative complication management after gastrectomy or esophagectomy. In this review, we summarize latest trends in esophageal and gastric surgery regarding the latest evidence and running trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Koch-Institut R (2017) Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018

    Google Scholar 

  2. Siewert JR, Stein HJ (1998) Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J Surg 85(11):1457–1459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hölscher AH, Gockel I, Porschen R (2019) Updated German S3 guidelines on esophageal cancer and supplements from a surgical perspective. Chirurg 90(5):398–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Möhler M, langer T, Bender T et al (2019) Leitlinienreport zur S3-Leitlinie Magenkarzinom – „Diagnostik und Therapie der Adenokarzinome des Magens und ösophagogastralen Übergangs“. Z Gastroenterol 57(12):e418–e671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baum P, Diers J, Lichthardt S et al (2019) Mortality and complications following visceral surgery: a nationwide analysis based on the diagnostic categories used in German hospital invoicing data. Dtsch Arztebl Int 116(44):739–746

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Berlet M, Weber MC, Neumann PA et al (2022) Gastrectomy for cancer beyond life expectancy. A comprehensive analysis of oncological gastric surgery in Germany between 2008 and 2018. Front Oncol 12:1032443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1032443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Baiocchi GL, Giacopuzzi S, Reim D et al (2020) Incidence and grading of complications after gastrectomy for cancer using the GASTRODATA registry: a European retrospective observational study. Ann Surg 272(5):807–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berlth F, Kim WH, Choi JH et al (2020) Prognostic impact of frozen section investigation and extent of proximal safety margin in gastric cancer resection. Ann Surg 272(5):871–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McAuliffe JC, Tang LH, Kamrani K et al (2019) Prevalence of false-negative results of intraoperative consultation on surgical margins during resection of gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 154(2):126–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2021 (6th edition). Gastric Cancer. 2023;26(1):1–25

  11. Nishizaki D, Ganeko R, Hoshino N et al (2021) Roux-en‑Y versus Billroth‑I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9(9):15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Choi YH, Kim N, Yoon H et al (2022) The incidence and risk factors for metachronous gastric cancer in the remnant stomach after gastric cancer surgery. Gut Liver 16(3):366–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Valli PV, Mertens JC, Kröger A et al (2018) Stent-over-sponge (SOS): a novel technique complementing endosponge therapy for foregut leaks and perforations. Endoscopy 50(2):148–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chon SH, Toex U, Plum PS, Kleinert R, Bruns CJ, Goeser T et al (2020) Efficacy and feasibility of OverStitch suturing of leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 34(9):3861–3869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berlth F, Bludau M, Plum PS et al (2019) Self-expanding metal stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in anastomotic leak treatment after oncologic gastroesophageal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 23(1):67–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hadzijusufovic E, Tagkalos E, Neumann H et al (2019) Preoperative endoscopic pyloric balloon dilatation decreases the rate of delayed gastric emptying after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 32(6):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Son SY, Hur H, Hyung WJ et al (2022) Laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the KLASS-02 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 157(10):879–886

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380(2):152–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berlth F, Plum PS, Chon SH et al (2018) Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma reduces postoperative pain and pneumonia compared to hybrid esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 32(12):4957–4965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tagkalos E, Goense L, Hoppe-Lotichius M et al (2020) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Dis Esophagus 33(4):doz060. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fujitani K, Yang HK, Mizusawa J et al (2016) Gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer with a single non-curable factor (REGATTA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 17(3):309–318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mönig SP, Schiffmann LM (2016) Resection of advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: Extended indications. Chirurg 87(5):398–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoeppner J, Lordick F, Brunner T et al (2016) ESOPEC: prospective randomized controlled multicenter phase III trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT protocol) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS protocol) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (NCT02509286). BMC Cancer 16(1):503. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2564-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tagkalos E, van der Sluis PC, Berlth F et al (2021) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT‑2 trial). BMC Cancer 21(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nickel F, Studier-Fischer A, Hausmann D et al (2022) Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765). BMJ Open 12(10):31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leers JM, Knepper L, van der Veen A et al (2020) The CARDIA-trial protocol: a multinational, prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing transthoracic esophagectomy with transhiatal extended gastrectomy in adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) type II. BMC Cancer 20(1):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Batran AE, Goetze T, Müller DW et al (2017) The RENAISSANCE (AIO-FLOT5) trial: effect of chemotherapy alone vs. chemotherapy followed by surgical resection on survival and quality of life in patients with limited-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction—a phase III trial of the German AIO/CAO-V/CAOGI. BMC Cancer 17(1):893. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3918-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tachezy M, Chon SH, Rieck I et al (2021) Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stent treatment of esophageal anastomotic leaks (ESOLEAK): study protocol for a prospective randomized phase 2 trial. Trials 22(1):377. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05315-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Philipp Grimminger.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

F. Berlth gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. P.P. Grimminger ist als Proctor für Intuitive Surgery tätig.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

Markus Möhler, Mainz

Ralf Jakobs, Ludwigshafen

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berlth, F., Grimminger, P.P. Chirurgische Therapie des Magen- und Barrett-Karzinoms. Gastroenterologie 18, 196–204 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-023-00689-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-023-00689-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation