Surgeon-Pathologist Team Approach Dramatically Affects Lymph Nodes Detection and Improves Patients' Short-Term Outcome

Simple Summary Appropriate lymph node harvesting for patients with gastric cancer is fundamental for a correct staging and is strongly related to survival. In this study, we present a new protocol for on-site macroscopic evaluation and sampling of lymph nodes for gastric cancer patients. With the joint collaboration of surgeons and pathologists, our method aims to provide the largest possible number of analyzed lymph nodes per patient, allowing for a better staging. We are convinced that this approach is routinely feasible, and our preliminary results seem to confirm better patient stratification compared to other lymph node dissection methods. The downstaging of gastric cancer has recently gained particular attention in the field of gastric cancer surgery. The phenomenon is mainly due to an inappropriate sampling of lymph nodes during standard lymphadenectomy. Hence, collection of the maximum number of lymph nodes is a critical factor affecting the outcome of patients. None of the techniques proposed so far have demonstrated a real efficiency in increasing the number of identified lymph nodes. To harvest the maximum number of lymph nodes, we designed a protocol for on-site macroscopic evaluation and sampling of lymph nodes according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association protocol. The procedure was carried out by a surgeon/pathologist team in the operating room. We enrolled one hundred patients, 50 of whom belonged to the study group and 50 to a control group. The study group included patients who underwent lymph node dissection following the proposed protocol; the control group encompassed patients undergoing standard procedures for sampling. We compared the number and maximum diameter of lymph nodes collected in both groups, as well as some postoperative variables, the 30-day mortality and the overall survival. In the study group, the mean number of lymph nodes harvested was higher than the control one (p = 0.001). Moreover, by applying the proposed technique, we sampled lymph nodes with a very small diameter, some of which were metastatic. Noticeably, no difference in terms of postoperative course was identified between the two groups, again supporting the feasibility of an extended lymphadenectomy. By comparing the prognosis of patients, a better overall survival (p = 0.03) was detected in the study group; however, to date, no long-term follow-up is available. Interestingly, patients with metastasis in node stations number 8, 9, 11 or with skip metastasis, experienced a worse outcome and died. Based on our preliminary results, the pathologist/surgeon team approach seems to be a reliable option, despite of a slight increase in sfaff workload and technical cost. It allows for the harvesting of a larger number of lymph nodes and improves the outcome of the patients thanks to more precise staging and therapy. Nevertheless, since a higher number of patients are necessary to confirm our findings and assess the impact of this technique on oncological outcome, our study could serve as a proof-of-concept for a larger, multicentric collaboration.