Safety and Efficacy of Reduced-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial (KLASS-12).

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Hyoung-Il Kim, Hoseok Seo, Hoon Hur, Chang Min Lee, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Dong Jin Park, Yun-Suhk Suh, Oh Jeong, Sang-Yong Son, Mi Ran Jung, Young Suk Park, Dong-Wook Kim, Jeong Ho Song, Yoontaek Lee, Ji-Ho Park, Shin-Hoo Park, Sejin Lee, Seong-Ho Kong, Sun-Hwi Hwang, Jong Won Kim, Han Hong Lee
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of Reduced-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial (KLASS-12).","authors":"Hyoung-Il Kim, Hoseok Seo, Hoon Hur, Chang Min Lee, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Dong Jin Park, Yun-Suhk Suh, Oh Jeong, Sang-Yong Son, Mi Ran Jung, Young Suk Park, Dong-Wook Kim, Jeong Ho Song, Yoontaek Lee, Ji-Ho Park, Shin-Hoo Park, Sejin Lee, Seong-Ho Kong, Sun-Hwi Hwang, Jong Won Kim, Han Hong Lee","doi":"10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This trial (KLASS-12) compares the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPLG) versus conventional 5-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (CPLG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma (T1N0M0) at 15 university hospitals in Korea. Participants underwent RPLG or CPLG with at least D1+ lymph node dissection. The primary aim of this study was to verify the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG in terms of postoperative 30-day complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From May 2022 to October 2023, 348 patients were randomly assigned to the RPLG and CPLG groups, with 174 patients in each group. After applying the exclusion criteria, 164 and 166 patients from the RPLG and CPLG groups, respectively, were analyzed. Complication rates were 10.4% and 9.2% for the RPLG and CPLG groups, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 10.4% vs. 7.2% in the per-protocol (PP) population. The risk difference was 0.012 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.051 to 0.075) in the ITT population and 0.031 (95% CI, -0.030 to 0.093) in the PP population. These findings verified the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG, with a 10% margin. Additionally, the pain score on postoperative day 5 was significantly lower in the RPLG group (1.6% vs. 1.8%; P=0.028). The 2 groups showed no significant differences in the lymph node yield, conversion rate, or length of hospital stay. RPLG was not an independent risk factor for complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RPLG is a feasible and safe alternative for patients with EGC, and its short-term outcomes are not inferior to those of CPLG.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0006935.</p>","PeriodicalId":56072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","volume":"25 3","pages":"437-454"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260794/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e34","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This trial (KLASS-12) compares the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (RPLG) versus conventional 5-port laparoscopic gastrectomy (CPLG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Materials and methods: This multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma (T1N0M0) at 15 university hospitals in Korea. Participants underwent RPLG or CPLG with at least D1+ lymph node dissection. The primary aim of this study was to verify the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG in terms of postoperative 30-day complications.

Results: From May 2022 to October 2023, 348 patients were randomly assigned to the RPLG and CPLG groups, with 174 patients in each group. After applying the exclusion criteria, 164 and 166 patients from the RPLG and CPLG groups, respectively, were analyzed. Complication rates were 10.4% and 9.2% for the RPLG and CPLG groups, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and 10.4% vs. 7.2% in the per-protocol (PP) population. The risk difference was 0.012 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.051 to 0.075) in the ITT population and 0.031 (95% CI, -0.030 to 0.093) in the PP population. These findings verified the non-inferiority of RPLG to CPLG, with a 10% margin. Additionally, the pain score on postoperative day 5 was significantly lower in the RPLG group (1.6% vs. 1.8%; P=0.028). The 2 groups showed no significant differences in the lymph node yield, conversion rate, or length of hospital stay. RPLG was not an independent risk factor for complications.

Conclusions: RPLG is a feasible and safe alternative for patients with EGC, and its short-term outcomes are not inferior to those of CPLG.

Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0006935.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

早期胃癌腹腔镜远端胃切除术的安全性和有效性:一项多中心、随机、非劣效性试验(KLASS-12)
目的:本试验(KLASS-12)比较小孔腹腔镜胃切除术(RPLG)与常规5孔腹腔镜胃切除术(CPLG)治疗早期胃癌(EGC)的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:这项多中心、开放标签、随机对照试验纳入了韩国15所大学医院诊断为胃腺癌(T1N0M0)的患者。参与者接受RPLG或CPLG,至少D1+淋巴结清扫。本研究的主要目的是验证RPLG与CPLG在术后30天并发症方面的非劣效性。结果:2022年5月至2023年10月,348例患者随机分为RPLG组和CPLG组,每组174例。应用排除标准后,分别对RPLG组和CPLG组的164例和166例患者进行分析。在意向治疗(ITT)人群中,RPLG组和CPLG组的并发症发生率分别为10.4%和9.2%,而在按方案治疗(PP)人群中,并发症发生率分别为10.4%和7.2%。ITT人群的风险差异为0.012(95%可信区间[CI], -0.051 ~ 0.075), PP人群的风险差异为0.031 (95% CI, -0.030 ~ 0.093)。这些发现证实了RPLG与CPLG的非劣效性,差值为10%。此外,RPLG组术后第5天疼痛评分明显较低(1.6% vs. 1.8%;P = 0.028)。两组患者在淋巴结产量、转换率、住院时间等方面均无显著差异。RPLG不是并发症的独立危险因素。结论:对于EGC患者,RPLG是一种安全可行的替代方案,其近期疗效不逊于CPLG。试验注册:临床研究信息服务标识:KCT0006935。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Gastric Cancer
Journal of Gastric Cancer Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Cancer Research
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastric Cancer (J Gastric Cancer) is an international peer-reviewed journal. Each issue carries high quality clinical and translational researches on gastric neoplasms. Editorial Board of J Gastric Cancer publishes original articles on pathophysiology, molecular oncology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of gastric cancer as well as articles on dietary control and improving the quality of life for gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer includes case reports, review articles, how I do it articles, editorials, and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信