A Multicenter, RCT Study of the Clinical Efficacy of Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy in Neoadjuvant Gastric Cancer
NCT ID: NCT06042998
Last Updated: 2023-09-21
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
588 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-07-07
2027-12-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
the Clinical Efficacy of Robotic and Laparoscopic Radical Total Gastrectomy in Locally Advanced Middle and Upper Gastric Cancer
NCT05235932
Single-port Robotic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
NCT07237126
Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
NCT03313700
A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Telesurgery Versus Laparoscopic Surgery
NCT06369597
Clinical Efficacy Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy in Patients With Clinical Stage I Gastric Cancer
NCT03524300
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Unlike early diagnosis and treatment in developed countries such as Japan and South Korea, gastric cancer in China is mostly diagnosed in the middle to late stage, and the treatment effect is not yet satisfactory. Locally advanced gastric cancer remains the main challenge for the treatment of gastric cancer. The current treatment strategy for locally advanced gastric cancer is a multidisciplinary treatment strategy centered on surgery. Since the MAGIC trial, neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer has been widely accepted. Possible advantages of neoadjuvant therapy include better patient tolerance, tumor progression, and elimination of occult micro metastasis to improve radical resection and better prognosis.
Since the first laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery reported by Kitano et al. in 1994, it has undergone more than 20 years of continuous exploration and innovation. Laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery has rapidly developed worldwide and has now been widely recognized both domestically and internationally. A large number of studies on laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery and laparotomy have confirmed that Laparoscopy has the advantages of less complications, less blood loss during operation, less postoperative pain and inflammatory reaction, rapid recovery of gastrointestinal function, short postoperative hospital stay, and good cosmetic effect, and the oncological treatment effect is equivalent to that of open surgery. At present, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer is gradually developing, but the traditional Laparoscopy is limited in fine operation, vision and other aspects. In order to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, the da Vinci robot system has emerged. As an advanced laparoscopic system, the robot has solved many shortcomings of conventional laparoscopy with its unique advantages. A clearer field of view can better display small anatomical structures, which is conducive to achieving skeletonization of gastric perivascular structures. At the same time, it reduces the difficulty of lymph node dissection and bleeding. At the same time, it has a simulated wrist with 7 degrees of freedom, greatly improving the flexibility of operation and reducing the difficulty of suturing. In the field of gastric cancer surgery, since Hashizume et al. first reported robot gastric cancer surgery in 2002, there have been increasing reports on the safety and feasibility of robot surgical systems applied to gastric cancer treatment. At present, a large number of studies have confirmed that compared with Laparoscopy, robotic surgery can also achieve radical resection, and has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss and more lymph nodes to be cleared.
However, the safety and effectiveness of da Vinci surgery are still unclear for patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The pro fibrotic response caused by chemotherapy and the loss of normal tissue planes caused by cytotoxicity pose new technological challenges. Whether less trauma and more lymph node dissection are equivalent to better postoperative safety, chemotherapy completion rate, and survival benefits remains a key issue in clinical practice. Previous RCT studies have shown that LADG seems to provide better postoperative safety and adjuvant chemotherapy tolerance than ODG for locally advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, further targeted research is needed to explore robotic gastric cancer surgery for neoadjuvant therapy.
Based on the above background, the safety and effectiveness of robotic Gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients undergoing new adjuvant treatment is a key clinical problem in gastric surgery that needs to be solved urgently. Therefore, on the basis of traditional laparoscopy and robotic laparoscopy, this study compared the short-term and long-term clinical efficacy of Leonardo da Vinci Gastrectomy in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastric cancer with gastric adenocarcinoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment.
2. Research Purpose To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot radical Gastrectomy and laparoscopic radical Gastrectomy, patients with gastric cancer (cT2N+M0 or cT3-4a/N+M0, phase II and III) undergoing neoadjuvant treatment were selected as subjects.
3. Research Design Adopting a multicenter, prospective, open, randomized, controlled, and non-inferiority validation design.
3.2 Comparison and grouping Group A (experimental group): Performing robot radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer Group B (control group): Performing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer 3.3 Estimation of Sample Size This study used the 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) as the main efficacy evaluation indicator. Using 1:1 random grouping, The planned collection of cases is 1.5 years, and the last case will be followed up for another 3 years after enrollment. Due to the lack of previous similar research results, the dual standard method described in Neuenschwander et al.'s paper was used to calculate the required sample size to determine the non disadvantages of robotic versus laparoscopic gastric cancer radical surgery based on DFS \[20\]. The first criterion is the critical threshold for HR valuation to be less than 1.08, while the second criterion requires that the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for non inferiority margin valuation be less than 1.24. The inspection level is taken as 0.05 (bilateral), and the inspection efficiency is taken as 0.8. Using PASS calculation, the sample size N=269, which means that each group requires 268 people. Considering possible exclusion and loss of follow-up cases (10% dropout rate), the final sample size required for each group is 294, with a total of 588 cases required.
3.4 Blind method: This study adopts an open design 3.5 Research cycle Case enrollment cycle: Complete the required case enrollment within 1.5 years. Follow up period: The first case is included as the starting point for follow-up, and the main research purpose is 3 years after the last case is included End point of follow-up. Expected time: June 2023- December 2024 (completion of enrollment) - December 2027 (completion of follow-up) 3.6 Randomization This study adopts a central dynamic randomization method based on minimization, considering stratified factors such as age, BMI, preoperative staging, chemotherapy regimen, and tumor location. After each case is selected, a dedicated person from the participating research center is responsible for inputting the selected case information (age, BMI, preoperative staging, neoadjuvant treatment plan, tumor location) into the central randomization system. The system will immediately return the randomization results to the research center. Researchers from each participating research center should strictly follow the grouping to determine whether the subjects will enter Group A (experimental group) or Group B (control group).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Robotic group
Robotic gastrectomy
Robotic radical gastrectomy
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
Laparoscopic group
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
Robotic radical gastrectomy
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Robotic radical gastrectomy
Laparoscopic gastrectomy
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. The primary gastric lesion was diagnosed as gastric adenocarcinoma (papillary adenocarcinoma, tubular adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, Signet ring cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma) by endoscopic biopsy histopathology;
3. Before neoadjuvant treatment, the preoperative clinical staging was confirmed to be II and III (cT2N+M0 or cT3-4a/N+M0) through gastroscopy/ultrasound gastroscopy, enhanced CT/MR, or diagnostic laparoscopic exploration (based on AJCC-8th TNM tumor staging);
4. 2-4 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy+/- targeted/immunotherapy, simple chemotherapy);
5. After new adjuvant treatment, radical Gastrectomy is feasible after MDT discussion;
6. Preoperative ECOG physical condition score of 0/1 or Karst score ≥ 70%;
7. Preoperative ASA score I-III;
8. The expected survival period exceeds 6 months;
9. Willing and able to comply with the research protocol;
10. Sign a written informed consent form before enrollment and be fully aware of the right to withdraw from this study at any time.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Suffering from serious mental illness;
3. History of upper abdominal surgery (excluding history of laparoscopic cholecystectomy);
4. History of gastric surgery (excluding ESD/EMR for gastric cancer);
5. Moderate to severe renal insufficiency;
6. Organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy;
7. Have a history of other malignant diseases within 5 years;
8. Have a history of unstable angina or myocardial infarction within 6 months;
9. Have a history of cerebral infarction or cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months;
10. Have a history of continuous systemic corticosteroid therapy within one month;
11. Simultaneous surgical treatment of other diseases is required (excluding laparoscopic cholecystectomy);
12. Gastric cancer comorbidities (bleeding, perforation, obstruction) requiring emergency surgery;
13. Lung function test FEV1\<50% of expected value;
14. The patient has participated or is currently participating in other clinical studies (within 6 months).
18 Years
75 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Qingdao University Affiliated Hospital
Qingdao, Shandong, China
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
CLASS-14
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.