Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is accepted as a more effective approach to conventional open distal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. However, efficacy for locally advanced gastric cancer remains uncertain.To compare 3-year disease-free survival for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy or open distal gastrectomy.The study was a noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial at 14 centers in China. A total of 1056 eligible patients with clinical stage T2, T3, or T4a gastric cancer without bulky nodes or distant metastases were enrolled from September 2012 to December 2014. Final follow-up was on December 31, 2017.Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio after stratification by site, age, cancer stage, and histology to undergo either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (n = 528) or open distal gastrectomy (n = 528) with D2 lymphadenectomy.The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival with a noninferiority margin of -10% to compare laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with open distal gastrectomy. Secondary end points of 3-year overall survival and recurrence patterns were tested for superiority.Among 1056 patients, 1039 (98.4%; mean age, 56.2 years; 313 [30.1%] women) had surgery (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy [n=519] vs open distal gastrectomy [n=520]), and 999 (94.6%) completed the study. Three-year disease-free survival rate was 76.5% in the laparoscopic distal gastrectomy group and 77.8% in the open distal gastrectomy group, absolute difference of -1.3% and a 1-sided 97.5% CI of -6.5% to ∞, not crossing the prespecified noninferiority margin. Three-year overall survival rate (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy: 83.1% vs 85.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.64; P = .28) and cumulative incidence of recurrence over the 3-year period (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy: 18.8% vs 16.5%; subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.54; P = .35) did not significantly differ between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy groups.Among patients with a preoperative clinical stage indicating locally advanced gastric cancer, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, compared with open distal gastrectomy, did not result in inferior disease-free survival at 3 years.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01609309.

The optimal perioperative chemotherapeutic regimen for locally advanced gastric cancer remains undefined. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of perioperative and postoperative S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) compared with postoperative capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer undergoing D2 gastrectomy.We did this open-label, phase 3, superiority and non-inferiority, randomised trial at 27 hospitals in China. We recruited antitumour treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with historically confirmed cT4a N+ M0 or cT4b Nany M0 gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with Karnofsky performance score of 70 or more. Patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web response system, stratified by participating centres and Lauren classification, to receive adjuvant CapOx (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m twice a day), adjuvant SOX (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral S-1 40-60 mg twice a day), or perioperative SOX (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day plus oral S-1 40-60 mg twice a day for three cycles preoperatively and five cycles postoperatively followed by three cycles of S-1 monotherapy). The primary endpoint, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, 3-year disease-free survival to assess the superiority of perioperative-SOX compared with adjuvant-SOX and the non-inferiority (hazard ratio non-inferiority margin of 1·33) of adjuvant-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx. Safety analysis were done in patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01534546.Between Aug 15, 2012, and Feb 28, 2017, 1094 patients were screened and 1022 (93%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, of whom 345 (34%) patients were assigned to the adjuvant-CapOx, 340 (33%) patients to the adjuvant-SOX group, and 337 (33%) patients to the perioperative-SOX group. 3-year disease-free survival was 51·1% (95% CI 45·5-56·3) in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 56·5% (51·0-61·7) in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 59·4% (53·8-64·6) in the perioperative-SOX group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0·77 (95% CI 0·61-0·97; Wald p=0·028) for the perioperative-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group and 0·86 (0·68-1·07; Wald p=0·17) for the adjuvant-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events was neutropenia (32 [12%] of 258 patients in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 21 [8%] of 249 patients in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 30 [10%] of 310 patients in the perioperative-SOX group). Serious adverse events were reported in seven (3%) of 258 patients in adjuvant-CapOx group, two of which were related to treatment; eight (3%) of 249 patients in adjuvant-SOX group, two of which were related to treatment; and seven (2%) of 310 patients in perioperative-SOX group, four of which were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths were reported.Perioperative-SOX showed a clinically meaningful improvement compared with adjuvant-CapOx in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who had D2 gastrectomy; adjuvant-SOX was non-inferior to adjuvant-CapOx in these patients. Perioperative-SOX could be considered a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.National Key Research and Development Program of China, Beijing Scholars Program 2018-2024, Peking University Clinical Scientist Program, Taiho, Sanofi-Aventis, and Hengrui Pharmaceutical.For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Gastric cancer, including gastroesophageal junction cancer, is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with high mortality. Sugemalimab is a fully human anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody. The combination of sugemalimab and chemotherapy showed promising antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b study among patients with treatment-naive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This combination was further evaluated in the GEMSTONE-303 phase 3 trial.

There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n = 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544-0.866; P = 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615-0.965; P = 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03653507.© 2023. The Author(s).

Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target in gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Satricabtagene autoleucel (satri-cel; also known as CT041), an autologous CLDN18.2-specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, showed encouraging activity in previously treated patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in phase 1 clinical trials. In this Article, we report the primary results from the phase 2 pivotal trial (CT041-ST-01) investigating the efficacy and safety of satri-cel for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer.In this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in China, patients with CLDN18.2-positive (immunohistochemistry expression intensity ≥2+ and positive tumour cells ≥40%) advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer, who were refractory to at least two previous lines of treatment, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive satri-cel or treatment of physician's choice (TPC). In the satri-cel group, satri-cel was infused up to three times at a dose of 250 × 10 cells. For the TPC group, one of the standard-of-care drugs (nivolumab, paclitaxel, docetaxel, irinotecan, or rivoceranib [apatinib]) was given, per the physician's decision. Those who had disease progression or drug intolerance in the TPC group could receive subsequent satri-cel, if eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by an independent review committee, in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581473), and is closed to new patients.Between March 22, 2022, and July 29, 2024, 266 patients were screened, of whom 156 were randomly allocated to the satri-cel group (n=104) or TPC group (n=52). 88 (85%) patients in the satri-cel group and 48 (92%) patients in the TPC group received study drug. In the satri-cel group, 28 (27%) patients had previously received three or more lines of treatment and 72 (69%) patients had peritoneal metastasis. In the TPC group, ten (19%) patients had previously received three or more lines of treatment and 31 (60%) patients had peritoneal metastasis. The median follow-up time for progression-free survival was 9·07 months (95% CI 6·21-13·01) in the satri-cel group and 3·45 months (2·89-not estimable) in the TPC group, based on the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 3·25 months (95% CI 2·86-4·53) in the satri-cel group and 1·77 months (1·61-2·04) in the TPC group (hazard ratio 0·37 [95% CI 0·24-0·56]; one-sided log-rank p<0·0001). In the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug), grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 87 (99%) of 88 patients in the satri-cel group and 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the TPC group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events related to treatment were decreased lymphocyte count (86 [98%] of 88 patients), decreased white blood cell count (68 [77%] patients), and decreased neutrophil count (58 [66%] patients) in the satri-cel group. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 84 (95%) of 88 patients in the satri-cel group.This is the first randomised controlled trial of CAR T-cell therapy in solid tumours globally. Satri-cel treatment resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with a manageable safety profile. These results support satri-cel as a new third-line treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer patients.CARsgen Therapeutics.Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

Initial experiences with robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, suggesting that RG is an effective alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). However, data on long-term survival and recurrence after RG for gastric cancer have yet to be reported. The objective of this study was to assess long-term outcomes after RG compared with LG.We retrospectively evaluated 313 and 524 patients who underwent RG or LG, respectively, for gastric cancer between July 2005 and December 2009. We compared long-term outcomes using the entire and a propensity-score matched cohort.The entire cohort analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival(OS) or relapse-free survival(RFS) (p = 0.4112 and p = 0.8733, respectively): 93.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.9-95.6] and 90.7% (95% CI, 86.9-93.5) after RG and 91.6% (95% CI 88.9-93.7) and 90.5% (95% CI 87.6-92.7) after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 0.828 (95% CI, 0.528-1.299; p = 0.4119) and 0.968 (95% CI, 0.649-1.445; p = 0.8741), respectively. The propensity-matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 5-year OS or RFS (p = 0.5207 and p = 0.2293, respectively): 93.2% and 90.7% after RG and 94.2% and 92.6% after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 1.194 (95% CI, 0.695-2.062; p = 0.5214) and 1.343 (95% CI, 0.830-2.192; p = 0.2321), respectively.The potential technical superiority of robotic system over laparoscopy did not improve oncological outcomes after gastrectomy. Long-term oncological outcomes were not different between RG and LG. Nevertheless, robotic applications in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may be an oncologically safe alternative.

To compare long-term outcomes between robotic and LG approaches using propensity score weighting based on a generalized boosted method to control for selection bias.

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.To compare the short-term surgical outcomes of RG with those of LG for patients with gastric cancer.In 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.LG vs RG.The 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.This 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).This study found no reduction of intra-abdominal infectious complications with RG compared with LG for gastric cancer.umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000031536.

The benefits of robotic gastrectomy (RG) over laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) remain controversial. This single-center, propensity score-matched study aimed to compare the outcomes of RG with those of LG for treating gastric cancer.We searched the prospective gastric cancer database of our institute for patients with gastric cancer who underwent RG or LG between January 2014 and December 2019, excluding patients with remnant stomach cancer and those who underwent concurrent surgery for comorbid malignancies. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, and short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups.We identified 1189 patients who underwent LG (n = 979) or RG (n = 210). After propensity score matching, we selected 210 pairs of patients who underwent LG (distal gastrectomy, 138; total or proximal gastrectomy, 72) or RG (distal gastrectomy, 143; total or proximal gastrectomy, 67). RG was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (RG = 201 min vs. LG = 231 min, p = 0.0051), less blood loss (RG = 13 mL vs. LG = 42 mL, p < 0.0001), lower postoperative morbidity (RG = 1.0% vs. LG = 4.8%, p = 0.0066), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.0002) than LG. Drain amylase levels on postoperative Days 1 and 3 in the RG group were significantly lower than those in the LG group (p < 0.0001).RG is a safe and feasible treatment for gastric cancer, with a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and lower postoperative morbidity than LG. The application of robotics in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may offer an alternative to conventional surgery. Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing RG with conventional LG are needed to establish the feasibility and efficacy of minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery.© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been reported to be technically feasible and safe for patients with gastric cancer. However, 5-year long-term survival and recurrence outcomes for advanced gastric cancer have rarely been reported. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.The general clinicopathological data of 1905 consecutive patients who underwent RG and LG were retrospectively collected at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital between November 2011 and October 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match groups. The primary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 283 patients in the RG group and 701 patients in the LG group were included in the analysis. The 5-year cumulative DFS rates were 67.28% in the robotic group and 70.41% in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year OS rate was 69.01% in the robotic group and 69.58% in the laparoscopic group. No significant differences in Kaplan-Meier survival curves for DFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.39, Log-rank P = 0.557) and OS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.34, Log-rank P = 0.850) were observed between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analyses for potential confounding variables, there were no significant differences in 5-year DFS and 5-year OS survival between the 2 groups (P > 0.05), except for patients with pathological stage III and pathological stage N3 (P < 0.05).For patients with early gastric cancer, robotic and laparoscopic approaches have similar long-term survival. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, further studies need to be conducted to assess the long-term survival outcomes of RG.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

To compare the short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer.

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients with GC who received RDG or LDG.

Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the differences in survival between these two approaches are currently lacking. From September 2017 to January 2020, 300 patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ were enrolled and randomized to either the robotic (RDG) or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) group (NCT03313700). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints reported here are the 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. The remaining secondary outcomes include intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, quality of lymphadenectomy, and cost differences, which have previously been reported. There were 283 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RDG group: n = 141; LDG group: n = 142). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The 3-year DFS rates were 85.8% and 73.2% in the RDG and LDG groups, respectively (p = 0.011). Multivariable Cox regression model including age, tumor size, sex, ECOG PS, lymphovascular invasion, histology, pT stage, and pN stage showed that RDG was associated with better 3-year DFS (HR: 0.541; 95% CI: 0.314-0.932). The RDG also improved the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate (RDG vs. LDG: 12.1% vs. 21.1%; HR: 0.546, 95% CI: 0.302-0.990). Compared to LDG, RDG demonstrated non-inferiority in 3-year DFS rate.© 2024. The Author(s).

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) has been shown to be safe and feasible in the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). However, it is unclear whether RG is equivalent to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), especially in the Western world. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of RG and LG in GC patients.We reviewed all gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy by minimally invasive approach in our institution from 2009 to 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias. DaVinci Si platform was used for RG.A total of 156 patients were eligible for inclusion (48 RG and 108 LG). Total gastrectomy was performed in 21.3% and 25% of cases in LG and RG, respectively. The frequency of stage pTNM II/III was 48.1%, and 54.2% in the LG and RG groups (p = 0.488). After PSM, 48 patients were matched in each group. LG and RG had a similar number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.759), operative time (p = 0.421), and hospital stay (p = 0.353). Blood loss was lower in the RG group (p = 0.042). The major postoperative complications rate was 16.7% for LG and 6.2% for RG (p = 0.109). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.1% and 0% for LG and RG, respectively (p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the LG and RG groups for disease-free survival (79.6% vs. 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.155) and overall survival (75.9% vs. 65.7%, respectively; p = 0.422).RG had similar surgical and long-term outcomes compared to LG, with less blood loss observed in RG.© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

. We compared the outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted (LA) and robotic-assisted (RA) gastrectomies performed for gastric adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database.. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients 18 years old with stages I to III gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent LA or RA gastrectomy. Propensity matching was performed between the 2 groups with regard to clinical staging, adjuvant treatment, demographics, and the extent of surgery.. A cohort of 1893 (1262 = LA, 631 = RA) patients was identified in a 2:1 propensity matching. The groups were well matched. The rate of negative margin as well as 30- and 90-day mortality were similar between the 2 cohorts. Long-term survival was similar between the 2 groups (median survival 49.2 months in LA vs 56.2 months for RA, =.405). However, the average number of lymph nodes (LNs) sampled was significantly higher in the RA group compared with the LA group (19.6 vs 17.4, <.001). Similarly, the percentage of surgeries in which ≥15 LNs were sampled was also greater in the RA group compared with the LA group (63.9% vs 57.6%, =.010). On multivariable analysis, having 15 LNs or more examined was associated with better survival (hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-0.87, <.001). Advanced age, nodal positivity, and advanced clinical stages were significantly associated with worse survival.. RA gastrectomy may allow a greater harvest of LNs, and thus more accurate staging, without increasing short-term adverse outcomes compared with LA gastrectomy. Short-term and long-term outcomes in this well-matched cohort appear comparable for both approaches.

Surgery remains the cornerstone treatment for gastric cancer. Previous studies have reported better lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive approaches. There is a paucity of data comparing robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in the US. Herein, we examined whether oncological adequacy differs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. A propensity score-matching analysis between robotic gastrectomy (RG) versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) was performed. The primary outcomes were lymphadenectomy ≥ 16 nodes and surgical margins.A total of 11,173 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2019. Of those 8320 underwent LG and 2853 RG. Comparing the unmatched cohorts, RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy (63.5% vs 57.1%, p < .0.0001), higher rate of negative margins (93.8% vs 91.9%, p < 0.001), lower rate of prolonged length of stay (26.0% vs 29.6%, p < .0.001), lower 90-day mortality (3.7% vs 5.0%, p < 0.0001), and a better 5-year overall survival (OS) (56% vs 54%, p = 0.03). A propensity score-matching cohort with a 1:1 ratio was created utilizing the variables associated with lymphadenectomy ≥ 16 nodes. The matched analysis revealed that the rate of adequate lymphadenectomy was significantly higher for RG compared to LG, 63.5% vs 60.4% (p = 0.01), respectively. There was no longer a significant difference between RG and LG regarding the rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, 90-day mortality, rate of receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, and OS.This propensity score-matching analysis with a large US cohort shows that RG was associated with a higher rate of adequate lymphadenectomy compared to LR. RG and LG had a similar rate of negative margins, prolonged length of stay, receipt of postoperative chemotherapy, 90-day mortality, and OS, suggesting that RG is a comparable surgical approach, if not superior to LG.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.