No abstract

IMPORTANCE Robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer may be associated with decreased incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications, including pancreatic fistula, leakage, and abscess. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and RG are thus required.OBJECTIVE To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this phase 3, prospective superiority randomized clinical trial of RG vs LG regarding reduction of complications, 241 patients with resectable gastric cancer (clinical stages I-III) were enrolled between April 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020. INTERVENTIONSLG vs RG. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications. Secondary end points were incidence of any complications, surgical results, postoperative courses, and oncologic outcomes. The modified intention-to-treat population excluded patients who had been randomized and met the postrandomization exclusion criteria. There was also a per-protocol population for analysis of postoperative complications. RESULTSThis study enrolled 241 patients, with 236 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (150 men [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [10.7] years). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intra-abdominal infectious complications (per-protocol population: 10 of 117 [8.5%] in the LG group vs 7 of 113 [6.2%] in the RG group). Of 241 patients, 122 were randomly assigned to the LG group, and 119 patients were randomly assigned to the RG group. Two of the 122 patients (1.6%) in the LG group converted from LG to open surgery, and 4 of 119 patients (3.4%) in the RG group converted from RG to open or laparoscopic surgery, with no significant difference. Finally, 117 patients in the LG group completed the procedure, and 113 in the RG group completed the procedure; these populations were defined as the per-protocol population. The overall incidence of postoperative complications of grade II or higher was significantly higher in the LG group (23 [19.7%]) than in the RG group (10 [8.8%]) (P = .02). Even in analysis limited to grade IIIa or higher, the complication rate was still significantly higher in the LG group (19 [16.2%]) than in the RG group (6 [5.3%]) (P = .01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.TRIAL REGISTRATION umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536

Landiolol was effective and safe in preventing atrial fibrillation after oesophagectomy. Registration number: UMIN000010648 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/).

Clinical application of dendritic cell (DC) vaccine therapy is hindered by the need for a large quantity of DCs generated from peripheral blood monocytes of the patient. We investigated whether genetically modified human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived dendritic cells (hiPSDCs) expressing carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) could induce CEA-specific cytotoxic T cells in a human model and whether genetically modified mouse iPSDCs (miPSDCs) expressing CEA showed an actual antitumor effect using a CEA transgenic mouse model. We differentiated hiPSDCs from iPSCs of three healthy donors and transduced CEA cDNA into the hiPSDCs. The surface marker expression, cytokine secretion and migratory capacity of the hiPSDCs were equivalent to those of human monocyte-derived DCs (hMoDCs). Cytotoxic T cells activated by hiPSDCs-CEA exhibited CEA-specific cytotoxic activity against the target cells expressing CEA. Furthermore, in the CEA transgenic mouse model, cytotoxic T cells activated in mice immunized with miPSDCs-CEA displayed CEA-specific cytotoxic activity against MC38-CEA. In the subcutaneous tumour model, vaccination with miPSDCs-CEA achieved a significant growth inhibitory effect on MC38-CEA. No adverse events caused by the administration of miPSDCs were observed. Genetic modification of iPSDCs, inducing the expression of CEA, is a promising tool for clinical applications of vaccine therapy for treating gastrointestinal cancer patients.

No abstract