Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016

01-12-2016 | Gastrointestinal Oncology

Usefulness of Surgical Apgar Score on Predicting Survival After Surgery for Gastric Cancer

Authors: Takanobu Yamada, MD, Akira Tsuburaya, MD, PhD, Tsutomu Hayashi, MD, Toru Aoyama, MD, PhD, Hirohito Fujikawa, MD, Junya Shirai, MD, Haruhiko Cho, MD, PhD, Toshio Sasaki, MD, PhD, Yasushi Rino, MD, PhD, Munetaka Masuda, MD, PhD, Takaki Yoshikawa, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Special Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Complete surgical resection is essential for a cure for most gastric cancer. Recently it was reported that surgical Apgar score (SAS) can predict postoperative complication and that postoperative complication is associated with poor long-term survival. The aim of this study is to assess whether SAS can predict overall survival (OS) after surgery for gastric cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively compared clinicopathological characteristics and survival between high and low SAS score groups in patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Results

Low-scored SAS group (group L) was significantly more common among ASA-PS 2, open approach, total gastrectomy, D2 lymph node dissection, postoperative complication grade 2–4, deep tumor invasion, lymph node metastases, and advanced pathological TNM stage than high-scored SAS group (group H). The 5-year OS of group H and group L were 81.6 and 55.9 %, respectively (p < .001); OS of group L tended to be poorer than that of group H in stage III patients (p = .060) and in stage IV patients (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, pathological stage and SAS were identified as independent predictors for OS.

Conclusions

SAS is useful for predicting survival after surgery for gastric cancer.
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available at: http://​globocan.​iarc.​fr, accessed March 25, 2016.
2.
Bonenkamp JJ, Hermans J, Sasako M, et al. Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 1990;340:908–14.CrossRef
3.
Cuschieri A, Fayers P, Fielding J, Craven J, Bancewicz J, Joypaul V, Cook P. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: preliminary results of the MRC randomised controlled surgical trial. The Surgical Cooperative Group. Lancet. 1996;347:995–9.PubMed
4.
Sasako M, Sano T, Yamamoto S, et al. D2 lymphadenectomy alone or with para-aortic nodal dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:453–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report–a phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized trial (KLASS Trial). Ann Surg. 2010;51:417–20.CrossRef
6.
Katai H, Sasako M, Fukuda H, et al. Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with suprapancreatic nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II trial (JCOG 0703). Gastric Cancer. 2010;13:238–44.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gawande AA, Kwaan MR, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SA, Zinner MJ. An Apgar score for surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:201–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bang YJ, Kim YW, Yang HK, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:315–21.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Regenbogen SE, Lancaster RT, Lipsitz SR, Greenberg CC, Hutter MM, Gawande AA. Does the Surgical Apgar Score measure intraoperative performance? Ann Surg. 2008; 248:320–328.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Prasad SM, Ferreria M, Berry AM, Lipsitz SR, Richie JP, Gawande AA, Hu JC. Surgical Apgar outcome score: perioperative risk assessment for radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2009;181:1046–52.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Haynes AB, Regenbogen SE, Weiser TG, et al. Surgical outcome measurement for a global patient population: validation of the Surgical Apgar Score in 8 countries. Surgery. 2011;149:519–24.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Regenbogen SE, Ehrenfeld JM, Lipsitz SR, Greenberg CC, Hutter MM, Gawande AA. Utility of the surgical apgar score: validation in 4119 patients. Arch Surg. 2009;144:30–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zighelboim I, Kizer N, Taylor NP, et al. “Surgical Apgar Score” predicts postoperative complications after cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:370–3.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Regenbogen SE, Bordeianou L, Hutter MM, Gawande AA. The intraoperative Surgical Apgar Score predicts postdischarge complications after colon and rectal resection. Surgery. 2010;148:559–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Yamada T, Tsuburaya A, Hayashi T, et al. Surgical Apgar score predicts postoperative complications after surgery for gastric cancer. Glob Surg. 2015;1:48–51.CrossRef
16.
Tokunaga M, Tanizawa Y, Bando E, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Poor survival rate in patients with postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications following curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;20:1575–83.CrossRef
17.
Hayashi T, Yoshikawa T, Aoyama T, et al. Impact of infectious complications on gastric cancer recurrence. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18:368–74.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Li QG, Li P, Tang D, Chen J, Wang DR. Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival after radical resection for gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:4060–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Witterkind CH. International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. 7th ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 2009.
20.
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–23.CrossRef
21.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Fujitani K, Yang HK, Mizusawa J, et al. 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. 2016;17:309–18.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Monk TG, Saini V, Weldon BC, Sigl JC. Anesthetic management and one-year mortality after noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:4–10.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kawasaki T, Ogata M, Kawasaki C, Okamoto K, Sata T. Effects of epidural anaesthesia on surgical stress-induced immunosuppression during upper abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:196–203.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zhao J, Mo H. The impact of different anesthesia methods on stress reaction and immune function of the patients with gastric cancer during peri-operative period. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98:568–73.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Usefulness of Surgical Apgar Score on Predicting Survival After Surgery for Gastric Cancer
Authors
Takanobu Yamada, MD
Akira Tsuburaya, MD, PhD
Tsutomu Hayashi, MD
Toru Aoyama, MD, PhD
Hirohito Fujikawa, MD
Junya Shirai, MD
Haruhiko Cho, MD, PhD
Toshio Sasaki, MD, PhD
Yasushi Rino, MD, PhD
Munetaka Masuda, MD, PhD
Takaki Yoshikawa, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue Special Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5525-4

Other articles of this Special Issue 5/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients Who have In-Transit Melanoma Metastases Treated with Isolated Limb Perfusion

Head and Neck Oncology

The Therapeutic Benefit of Radical Resection for T4b Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Partial or Complete Response After Radical Chemo-Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT)

Urologic Oncology

The Preoperative Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio is a Novel Biomarker for Predicting Worse Clinical Outcomes in Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients with a Previous History of Smoking

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Autologous Tumor Cell Lysate-Loaded Dendritic Cell Vaccine Inhibited Tumor Progression in an Orthotopic Murine Model for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OriginalPaper

PET-Probe: Evaluation of Technical Performance and Clinical Utility of a Handheld High-Energy Gamma Probe in Oncologic Surgery

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Lymphadenectomy during Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumor Surgery: The Concept of Skip Metastases