Background Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated. Methods A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival. Results Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery. Conclusion These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen.

Presenting the development experience in this way improved the clarity of transmission of the main learning points for other surgeons, eliminated bias from selective reporting and explained other types of selection bias. The IDEAL Prospective Development Study has clear advantages over standard case series format for presenting uncontrolled early study data from innovative procedures.

Background and Objectives The primary treatment for locally advanced cases of cervical cancer is chemoradiation followed by high‐dose brachytherapy. When this treatment fails, pelvic exenteration (PE) is an option in some cases. This study aimed to develop recommendations for the best management of patients with cervical cancer undergoing salvage PE. Methods A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology. Of them, 68 surgeons participated in the study and were divided into 10 working groups. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was carried out on topics chosen by the participants. These topics were indications for curative and palliative PE, preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of tumor resectability, access routes and surgical techniques, PE classification, urinary, vaginal, intestinal, and pelvic floor reconstructions, and postoperative follow‐up. To define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used. Results Most conducts and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants. Conclusions Guidelines outlining strategies for PE in the treatment of persistent or relapsed cervical cancer were developed and are based on the best evidence available in the literature.

Background Approximately 70% of cancer‐related deaths occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries. In addition to social and racial inequalities, treatment options in these countries are usually limited because of the lack of trained staff and equipment, limited patient access to health services, and a small number of clinical guidelines. Objectives The Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology developed this guideline to address these barriers and guide physicians treating patients with endometrial cancer (EC) in regions with limited resources and few specialized centers. Methods The guideline was prepared from 10 January to 25 October 20192019 by a multidisciplinary team of 56 experts to discuss the main obstacles faced by EC patients in Brazil. Thirteen questions considered critical to the surgical treatment of these patients were defined. The questions were assigned to groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Following a review by the coordinators and a second review by all participants, the groups made final adjustments for presentations in meetings, classified the level of evidence, and voted on the recommendations. Results For all questions including staging, fertility spearing treatment, genetic testing, sentinel lymph node use, surgical treatment, and other clinical relevant questions, major agreement was achieved by the participants, always using accessible alternatives. Conclusions It is possible to provide adequate treatment for most EC patients in resource‐limited areas, but the first option should be referral to specialized centers with more resources.

Background Adequate lymphadenectomy is an important step in gastrectomy for cancer, with a modified D2 lymphadenectomy being recommended for advanced gastric cancers. When assessing a novel technique for the treatment of gastric cancer, lymphadenectomy should be non-inferior. The aim of this study was to assess completeness of lymphadenectomy and distribution patterns between open total gastrectomy (OTG) and minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) in the era of peri-operative chemotherapy. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of the STOMACH trial, a randomized clinical trial in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between OTG and MITG for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Three-year survival, number of resected lymph nodes, completeness of lymphadenectomy, and distribution patterns were examined. Results A total of 96 patients were included in this trial and randomized between OTG (49 patients) and MITG (47 patients). No difference in 3-year survival was observed, this was 57.1% in OTG group versus 46.8% in MITG group (P = 0.186). The mean number of examined lymph nodes per patient was 44.3 ± 16.7 in the OTG group and 40.7 ± 16.3 in the MITG group (P = 0.209). D2 lymphadenectomy of 71.4% in the OTG group and 74.5% in the MITG group was performed according to the surgeons; according to the pathologist compliance to D2 lymphadenectomy was 30% in the OTG group and 36% in the MITG group. Tier 2 lymph node metastases (stations 7–12) were observed in 19.6% in the OTG group versus 43.5% in the MITG group (P = 0.024). Conclusion No difference in 3-year survival was observed between open and minimally invasive gastrectomy. No differences were observed for lymph node yield and type of lymphadenectomy. Adherence to D2 lymphadenectomy reported by the pathologist was markedly low.