
==== Front
World J Surg Oncol
World J Surg Oncol
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
1477-7819
BioMed Central London

3521
10.1186/s12957-024-03521-3
Review
Effect of omentum preservation on long-term prognosis of locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhou Xiaoshuai 1
Sheng Wentao 2
Huang Tongmin 3
Ren Wei renwei1121@163.com

4
1 Department of Anus and Intestine Surgery, Ningbo Yinzhou No. 2 Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang China
2 https://ror.org/04epb4p87 grid.268505.c 0000 0000 8744 8924 The Second Clinical Medical College, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang China
3 https://ror.org/05m1p5x56 grid.452661.2 0000 0004 1803 6319 Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Pancreatic Disease, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang China
4 General Family Medicine, Ningbo Yinzhou No. 2 Hospital, 998 North Qianhe Road, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, 315100 Zhejiang China
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
22 23624 5 2024
1 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

The effect of omentum preservation (OP) on locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the long-term prognosis of LAGC patients with OP versus omentum resection (OR).

Methods

A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted up until February 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. The primary outcome was to assess the impact of OP on the long-term prognosis of patients with LAGC, including overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

A total of six case-control studies were included, encompassing a cohort of 1897 patients. The OP group consisted of 844 patients, while the OR group comprised 1053 patients. The study results showed that the OS (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.90, P = 0.003) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.99, P = 0.038) in the OP group were superior to those observed in the OR group. Subgroup analysis indicated that 5-year OS (HR = 0.64, P = 0.003) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.69, P = 0.005) in the OP group were also better than those in the OR group in Korea. However, the subgroup analysis conducted on stage T3-T4 tumors revealed no statistically significant differences in OS (P = 0.083) and 5-year RFS (P = 0.173) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Compared with OR, OP shows non-inferiority in patients with LAGC and can be considered a potential treatment option for radical gastrectomy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-024-03521-3.

Keywords

Locally advanced gastric cancer
Omentum preservation
Omentum resection
Overall survival
Recurrence-free survival
Meta-analysis
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Despite a global decline in gastric cancer (GC) incidence and mortality rates, GC remains the fifth most prevalent malignant tumor worldwide and ranks fourth as a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. According to the 2020 Global Cancer Statistics Report, there were approximately 1,089,000 newly diagnosed cases of cancer and 769,000 fatalities reported globally. Moreover, the incidence of GC exhibits significant regional disparities, with particularly high rates in East Asia [1]. In recent years, the treatment of GC has evolved into a comprehensive model involving surgical intervention and multiple adjuvant therapies, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and more [2]. However, radical gastrectomy remains the cornerstone of treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

The radical gastrectomy procedure for GC involves removing the primary tumor as well as metastatic lymph nodes and surrounding infiltrating tissues, such as the omentum, to minimize the risk of distant metastasis and enhance curative efficacy. Currently, D2 lymph node dissection for LAGC has been recognized as a means to prevent lymph node metastasis. Peritoneal metastasis is one of the most common spreading sites of GC, and the prognosis is poor. To minimize clinical peritoneal implantation, it has been necessary to resect the entire omentum, including the bursa omentum, in previous treatments.

The structure and function of the omentum, however, are complex. On one hand, the omentum serves as an immune organ and contributes to immune defense [3]. On the other hand, it is also involved in infection, wound healing, and tissue regeneration [4]. At present, the effect of omentum preservation (OP) in early gastric cancer (EGC) has been demonstrated. For LAGC, previous meta-analyses have confirmed that OP exhibits reduced intraoperative blood loss compared to omentum resection (OR), along with a tendency towards shorter operation time, suggesting favorable short-term outcomes associated with OP [5–8]. Nonetheless, the long-term survival and recurrence rates regarding OP in LAGC have not reached a consensus. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a meta-analysis by systematically searching published articles on the role of OP in the long-term prognosis of LAGC.

Methods

This study adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and utilizes the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool for analysis. The scope of the literature search is from the inception of records in the electronic database until February 2024. Data were comprehensively and systematically collected from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Furthermore, manual searches were conducted to ensure the inclusion of all relevant articles by scrutinizing the references cited in previous studies. The search terms used included combinations of “Stomach Neoplasms,” “gastric carcinoma,” “gastric cancer,” “carcinoma of the stomach,” “omentectomy,” and “omentum.” Two experienced reviewers independently searched the databases, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. This study has been registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42024516152.

Selection and criteria of study

Studies were included according to the PICOS principles if: (1) the patient was diagnosed with LAGC and underwent radical gastrectomy; (2) the experimental group underwent radical gastrectomy combined with OP; (3) the control group underwent radical gastrectomy combined with OR; (4) the primary or secondary outcomes included, but were not limited to, survival endpoints; (5) research types of articles were cohort studies, case-control studies, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Exclusion criteria were defined as follows: (1) articles included EGC; (2) articles were deficient in completed data or the data was unquantifiable; (3) the language of the article was not English; (4) considering updated literature, those with a more comprehensive sample size or more recent ones were included.

Data extraction

The available data from all studies were independently extracted by two researchers based on a standardized data extraction table. The subsequent results were obtained through the above review process: study characteristics (country, study design, year, sample size, follow-up), patient characteristics [age, sex, body mass index (BMI)], tumor characteristics (location, size, TNM stage), treatment (type of surgery, surgical approach, extent of lymph node dissection, adjuvant chemotherapy), outcome measures [overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS)].

Assessment of quality

The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was utilized for RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed for case-control and cohort studies. The former consists of seven components: selection bias, implementation bias, measurement bias, follow-up bias, reporting bias, and other biases. Meanwhile, the latter evaluates risk from three perspectives: selection, comparability, and outcomes. In case of dispute, consensus was reached by consultation with the third reviewer.

Statistical analysis

The collected data in this meta-analysis was analyzed using Stata 12.0 software. The effect sizes for survival data were determined by calculating the hazard ratio (HR) along with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The chi-square test was employed to assess heterogeneity, and when I^2 < 50% or P > 0.05, it was deemed as exhibiting low heterogeneity; otherwise, it was considered to demonstrate high heterogeneity. In addition, due to potential heterogeneity (such as country, extent, and type of surgery, surgical approach) between studies, a random-effects model was used in this meta-analysis to improve the reliability of statistical results. Publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed when the number of articles was more than 10. All outcome-related data were analyzed with two-sided tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Studies selection

According to the designed literature retrieval process, a total of 2109 terms were queried. After excluding duplicate studies, 1567 studies remained. Upon reviewing the title and abstract, a total of 1546 studies were excluded, while 21 studies were found relevant to the topic. After thoroughly reading these 21 studies, it was determined that 15 did not meet the criteria: three included EGC, one lacked interesting outcomes, four had incomplete data, and seven were unavailable for statistical analysis. Ultimately, six studies were included in the meta-analysis [9–14]. The literature selection process is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram describing inclusion and exclusion criteria

Study characteristics

All six studies included in this analysis are case-control studies, with five of them utilizing propensity score matching (PSM). These studies are conducted in East Asia, including one study from China, two from Japan, and three from Korea. The publication years of these studies range from 2013 to 2023, with sample sizes ranging between 108 and 526 subjects. Furthermore, all patients included in these analyses suffered from LAGC.

Pathological features of the patients

A total of 1897 patients are enrolled, with 844 cases in the OP group and 1053 cases in the OR group. Regarding tumor pT stage, four studies restrict patients to pT3 or pT4, and the other two studies additionally involve pT1 or pT2. In terms of surgical intervention, in two studies, all patients underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. Regarding the dissection of lymph types, four studies incorporated D1 + and D2 surgery, while one study exclusively performed D2 surgery, and another study incorporated D2 + surgery based on D1 + and D2. The pathological features of the patients are presented in Table 1, with supplementary patient information provided in Supplementary Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis

Author	Song, M.	Seo, W. J.	Ri, M.	Lee, H.	Jeong, S. A.	Hasegawa, S.	
Year	2023	2021	2020	2023	2023	2013	
Country	China	South Korea	Japan	South Korea	South Korea	Japan	
Group	OP	OR	OP	OR	OP	OR	OP	OR	OP	OR	OP	OR	
Number	58	50	225	225	263	263	107	107	93	310	98	98	
pT stage	
 1	0	0	0	0	48	47	0	0	0	0	0	0	
 2	34	30	
 3	25	22	111	100	215	216	61	61	0	0	30	34	
 4a	33	28	114	125	46	46	93	310	34	34	
pN stage	
 0	20	18	73	75	145	148	56	56	44	70	41	39	
 1	47	42	21	53	23	25	
 2	38	32	42	42	118	115	51	51	28	187	17	18	
 3	63	66	17	16	
Histology	
 Well/ moderately	29	24	68	67	92	97	36	36	17	64	58	61	
 Poorly/undifferentiated	29	26	157	161	135	127	71	71	76	246	40	37	
Surgical type	
 TG	0	0	56	58	112	107	0	0	32	142	37	46	
 DG	58	50	169	167	151	156	107	107	61	168	61	52	
Surgical approach	
 Open	0	0	60	69	NA	NA	0	0	2	254	84	98	
 Laparoscopy	58	50	165	156	NA	NA	107	107	91	56	14	0	
Lymphadenectomy	D2	D2	D1+: 22

D2: 203

	D1+: 25

D2: 200

	≤D1: 8

D1+: 146

D2: 103

≥D2: 6

	≤D1: 11

D1+: 146

D2: 102

≥D2: 4

	D1+: 14

D2: 93

	D1+: 1

D2: 106

	< D2: 4

D2: 89

	< D2: 7

D2: 303

	D1 + a: 10

D1 + b: 3

D2: 83

D2+: 2

	D1 + a: 9

D1 + b: 3

D2: 84

D2+: 2

	
Retrieved lymph node	36.0 ± 9.4	34.2 ± 8.9	42	42	39 (30–50)	41 (32–51)	37 (11–104)	37 (12–84)	NA	NA	NA	NA	
NA, not available; OP, omentum preservation; OR, omentum resection; TG, total gastrectomy; DG, distal gastrectomy

Quality assessment

The quality assessment of the six studies based on NOS reveals that all the articles achieve scores ranging from 7 to 9, indicating a higher level of quality.

Analysis of survival outcomes

Regarding OS, which includes five studies, patients who underwent OP have a higher survival rate compared to those who received OR (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.90, P = 0.003, I^2 = 9.1%, Fig. 2). In terms of five-year RFS, which includes four studies, patients who received OP also have a higher 5-year RFS than those who received OR (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.99, P = 0.038, I^2 = 15%, Fig. 3).

Fig. 2 Forest plot of overall survival with omentum preservation versus omentum resection(P = 0.003)

Fig. 3 Forest plot of 5-year recurrence-free survival with omentum preservation versus omentum resection(P = 0.038)

Subgroup analysis

The subgroup analyses were conducted based on tumor stage and region. For T3-T4 stage (cT3-4 or pT3-4) tumors, the study results show no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.81, P = 0.083, Fig. 4a) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.82, P = 0.173, Fig. 4b) between both groups. In terms of regions, the OP groups are better than the OR groups in both 5-year OS (HR = 0.64, P = 0.003, Fig. 5a) and 5-year RFS (HR = 0.69, P = 0.005, Fig. 5b) in Korea. Meanwhile, with two studies included, there is no statistical difference in OS between the two groups in 5-year Japan (HR = 0.75, P = 0.31, Fig. 6).

Fig. 4 Forest plot of the prognosis of omentum preservation versus omentum resection in T3-T4 tumors: (a) overall survival (P = 0.083); (b) 5-year recurrence free survival (P = 0.173)

Fig. 5 Forest plot of the prognosis of omentum preservation versus omentum resection for Korean subgroup: (a) 5-year overall survival (P = 0.003); (b) 5-year recurrence free survival (P = 0.005)

Fig. 6 Forest plot of 5-year overall survival with omentum preservation versus omentum resection for Japanese subgroup (P = 0.31)

Discussion

Six case-control studies involving 1,897 patients were included. The primary outcomes assessed were long-term prognoses. For overall OS and RFS, the results showed that OP was superior to omentum resection (OR), confirmed in the Korean subgroup analysis as well. However, in Japan, subgroup analysis displayed no statistical difference between the two groups. Additionally, the results for T3-T4 tumors were not significantly different between the experimental and control groups. Collectively, OP is deemed advantageous for the long-term prognosis of patients diagnosed with LAGC.

Resectable GC is primarily treated by surgery, including for EGC and LAGC. For EGC, supported by evidence-based medicine, OP can effectively mitigate complications and intraoperative blood loss, yielding favorable long-term prognosis [15]. In contrast, the prognosis for LAGC is unsatisfactory, with a high recurrence rate. The metastatic patterns of GC include hematogenous metastasis, lymphatic metastasis, local recurrence, and implantation metastasis. A large RCT conducted in the Netherlands confirmed that D2 lymphadenectomy was superior to D1 lymphadenectomy in terms of recurrence and survival, and D2 lymphadenectomy remains the standard surgical procedure for LAGC today [16].

The most common type of GC implant metastasis is peritoneal metastasis, reported to account for more than 50% of cases [17]. Currently, cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and other technologies are used to treat and prevent peritoneal implantation [18–20]. The mechanism of peritoneal metastasis in GC can be described by Tiffin Paget’s “seeds and soil” theory [21]. Specifically, tumor cells undergo the following processes: (1) initially, tumor cells are spontaneously shed or released during surgery [22], facilitated by a diverse array of growth factors, cytokines, and proteases. This process involves the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), where E-cadherin plays a crucial role in maintaining cellular polarity [23]. (2) The survival of tumor cells in the hypoxic tumor microenvironment (TME) relies on the presence of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α). HIF-1α stimulates the production of angiopoietin-like protein (ANGPT), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and other proangiogenic factors to facilitate oxygen delivery to tumor cells [24, 25]. (3) Tumor cells infiltrate the peritoneum by penetrating the mesothelium and lymphatic foramen within the peritoneal cavity. Previous research has demonstrated that gastric cancer cells express growth factors, such as transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) [26], and adhesion molecules, like cluster of differentiation 44 (CD44) [27], which stimulate mesothelial cells to enhance collagen and fibrin production. This process promotes omental fibrosis and facilitates tumor cell attachment to the mesothelium [28]. Another possible route of metastasis is through the lymphatic foramen located in milky spots of the omentum, where macrophage migration occurs. However, tumor cells can also invade subcutaneous spaces via this pathway [29]. (4) Adherent tumor cells must cross the basement membrane to invade the peritoneum. Increased expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) such as MMP-2 and MMP-7 during cancer metastasis disrupts peritoneal structure and correlates with GC dissemination [30–32]. (5) Successful invasion of tumor cells, through autocrine or paracrine growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), promote blood vessel formation and expand the invasion range [33]. Based on the above theory, considering the high rate of peritoneal metastasis in LAGC, it is necessary to remove the complete omentum after surgery to reduce recurrence. However, in our study, prophylactic OR did not improve the long-term prognosis of patients.

Our results indicate that OP was noninferior to OR in the long-term prognosis of LAGC. Possible conjectures are as follows. Firstly, the significance of OR is to prevent tumor implantation and lymph node metastasis. In fact, OP also removes part of the omentum and lymph nodes. The incision was made 3 to 4 cm from the gastroepiploic arch, and the omentum connected by short gastric vessels was preserved. In this process, complete lymph node dissection can be achieved. OR and OP have similar effects in preventing GC metastasis. Secondly, in addition to implant metastasis, blood and lymph node metastasis are also important routes of metastasis. Kakushima, N. et al. reported several cases of Krukenberg tumor arising from EGC confined to the mucosa [34]. Because the mucosa of EGC is limited, it is not easy to implant and metastasize, but it can spread through blood vessels and lymphatic vessels. Indeed, Krukenberg tumor most commonly occurs through retrograde lymph node metastasis as a type of metastatic tumor [35]. As previously mentioned, prophylactic OR aims to prevent peritoneal implantation metastasis; however, due to alternative modes of metastasis existing, OR may not be efficacious, particularly in advanced malignant tumors. Finally, Powless, C. A. et al. reported a study of early resectable cancer in which tumor cells were found in only 4% of patients with omental tissue microscopic biopsy [36]. Similar results were reported by Cecelia A Powless et al., with only 3.8% of patients up-staging the pathology by omentum biopsy [37]. In the resectable stage of GC, the detection rate of cancer cells in the omentum is low, and the effect of OR is not significant. However, in LAGC, especially after stage T4 when the tumor penetrates the serosa and invades adjacent structures, tumor cells tend to metastasize to distant sites, and the OR has little value.

LAGC was divided into stage II and stage III. Because of the potential positive correlation between the risk of peritoneal metastasis and tumor stage, a subgroup analysis was performed for stage T3-T4 tumors. The results revealed that OP did not have a discernible impact on long-term survival. Theoretically, there is heterogeneity in the prognosis of different tumor stages, but further subgroup analysis cannot be done due to the lack of data. But there are also studies that provide data based on the staging of T3-T4. Compared to patients with T1-T2, those with T3-T4 have a worse prognosis, are more prone to recurrence and metastasis, and require standard D2 lymph node dissection and greater omentum resection. The OP in stage T3-T4 LAGC is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a subgroup analysis for stage T3-T4. In addition, the treatment modality for LAGC is surgery combined with perioperative therapy. In theory, subgroup analysis should be conducted based on different adjuvant treatment modalities, but due to a lack of data, subgroup analysis cannot be performed, which may be one of the reasons leading to the high heterogeneity in our study.

Regarding long-term survival, OP showed an overall better outcome in this study (including within the Korean subgroup). This observation may be attributed to the functional significance of the omentum. Within the omentum are small gaps between mesothelial cells where fat-associated lymphoid clusters (FALCs) form by aggregating white blood cells; these FALCs serve as fundamental units for immune function within the omentum [38]. They filter peritoneal fluid to mount local immune responses against antigens and inflammatory stimulation [39]. In addition, a RCT focusing on short-term benefits of OP in EGC patients revealed reduced operation time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and lower incidence of major complications such as anastomotic leakage [40]. Studies have reported that intraoperative complications are closely related to recurrence after radical gastrectomy for GC, and the 5-year survival rate of patients without complications is significantly higher than that of patients with complications [41]. This result further supports our view. In general, OR has a positive effect on the long-term prognosis of patients.

For long-term outcomes, previous meta-analyses have confirmed the noninferiority of OP in terms of OS and RFS [5–8, 42, 43]. In addition, the results from the group of Kong M. [43] and Chen M. [42]et al. further proved the beneficial effect of OP on OS. Noteworthily, our study showed that OP not only provides an OS benefit but also reduces the recurrence rate. Taking the time variable into account, we used HR and 95% CI, and heterogeneity was low. Consequently, these findings can be deemed more robust and reliable. Furthermore, our study also demonstrated that OP was noninferior to OR in subgroup analyses based on region and tumor stage.

However, our study has certain limitations. Firstly, our study was based on a retrospective design and the level of evidence was not high. Clinical studies on the long-term prognosis of LAGC based on OP are currently underway, but the data is not yet mature, such as the studies conducted by Sato, Y. [44] et al. and Lu, S. [45] et al. The results of these RCT studies are highly anticipated. Additionally, the sample size and number of studies included in our analysis were insufficient, which may introduce more bias and heterogeneity; therefore, we look forward to the publication of large-sample RCTs in the future. Finally, all the studies included in our analysis were conducted in Asia and had a strong ethnic and regional homogeneity among patients. Hence, our findings may not be directly applicable to regions outside Asia.

Conclusion

This study confirmed the feasibility of OP in LAGC. OP can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with LAGC (including OS and RFS). This finding may need to be further confirmed by large sample RCTs.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Table 1. Characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis

Supplementary Table 2. Quality assessment of cohort studies included

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

XZ and WR contributed to drafting, conception, and design. WS contributed to manuscript writing. WS and TH contributed to data collection; WS and TH performed procedures and data analysis. TH polished this article. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

GC Gastric cancer

LAGC Locally advanced gastric cancer

EGC Early gastric cancer

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

BMI Body mass index

OS Overall survival

RFS Recurrence free survival

RCT Randomized controlled trial

NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

HR Hazard ratio

CI Confidence Interval

PSM Propensity score matching

OP Omentum preservation

OR Omentum resection

EMT Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition

TME Tumor microenvironment

ANGPT Angiopoietin-like protein

EGF Epidermal growth factor

TGF-β1 Transforming growth factor-β1

CD44 Cluster of differentiation 44

MMP Matrix metalloproteinase

VEGF Vascular endothelial growth factor

FALCs Fat-associated lymphoid clusters

IL-6 Interleukin- 6

TNF-α Tumor necrosis factor-α

AMSTAR Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. 2021. 71(3): pp. 209–249.
2. Sawaki M Shien T Iwata H TNM classification of malignant tumors (breast Cancer Study Group) Jpn J Clin Oncol 2019 49 3 228 31 10.1093/jjco/hyy182 30541035
Sawaki M, Shien T, Iwata H. TNM classification of malignant tumors (breast Cancer Study Group). Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(3):228–31.30541035 10.1093/jjco/hyy182
3. Liu M Silva-Sanchez A Randall TD Specialized Immune Responses Perit Cavity Omentum 2021 109 4 717 29
Liu M, Silva-Sanchez A, Randall TD. Specialized Immune Responses Perit Cavity Omentum. 2021;109(4):717–29.
4. Wang AW The Greater Omentum-A vibrant and enigmatic immunologic organ involved in Injury and infection resolution Shock 2020 53 4 384 90 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001428 31389904
Wang AW, et al. The Greater Omentum-A vibrant and enigmatic immunologic organ involved in Injury and infection resolution. Shock. 2020;53(4):384–90.31389904 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001428
5. Lin HW Gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surgery 2022 171 5 1281 9 10.1016/j.surg.2021.10.052 34857385
Lin HW, et al. Gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2022;171(5):1281–9.34857385 10.1016/j.surg.2021.10.052
6. Zhang YX Comparison of Survival and Safety between total omentectomy and partial omentectomy for gastric Cancer: a Meta-analysis Front Surg 2021 8 708545 10.3389/fsurg.2021.708545 35004832
Zhang YX, et al. Comparison of Survival and Safety between total omentectomy and partial omentectomy for gastric Cancer: a Meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:708545.35004832 10.3389/fsurg.2021.708545
7. Zizzo M, Zanelli M. Gastrectomy with or without complete omentectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Meta-analysis. 2022. 58(9).
8. Li Z Efficacy of Omentum-preserving gastrectomy for patients with gastric Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Front Oncol 2021 11 710814 10.3389/fonc.2021.710814 34540677
Li Z, et al. Efficacy of Omentum-preserving gastrectomy for patients with gastric Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:710814.34540677 10.3389/fonc.2021.710814
9. Hasegawa S Omentum-preserving gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity-matched retrospective cohort study Gastric Cancer 2013 16 3 383 8 10.1007/s10120-012-0198-6 22983455
Hasegawa S, et al. Omentum-preserving gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a propensity-matched retrospective cohort study. Gastric Cancer. 2013;16(3):383–8.22983455 10.1007/s10120-012-0198-6
10. Jeong SA et al. Does total omentectomy prevent peritoneal seeding for advanced gastric cancer with serosal invasion? 2024. 38(1): pp. 97–104.
11. Lee H Is total Omentectomy Mandatory in T3 and T4a gastric Cancer for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy? Ann Surg Oncol 2023 30 1 289 97 10.1245/s10434-022-12386-3 35997904
Lee H, et al. Is total Omentectomy Mandatory in T3 and T4a gastric Cancer for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30(1):289–97.35997904 10.1245/s10434-022-12386-3
12. Ri M, Nunobe S. Gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for cT3-4 gastric cancer: a multicentre cohort study. 2020. 107(12): pp. 1640–7.
13. Seo WJ Omentum preservation as an oncologically comparable and surgically superior alternative to total omentectomy during radical gastrectomy for T3-T4 gastric cancer Surgery 2021 170 2 610 6 10.1016/j.surg.2021.02.008 33714618
Seo WJ, et al. Omentum preservation as an oncologically comparable and surgically superior alternative to total omentectomy during radical gastrectomy for T3-T4 gastric cancer. Surgery. 2021;170(2):610–6.33714618 10.1016/j.surg.2021.02.008
14. Song M et al. Safety and efficacy of partial omentectomy in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for pT3-T4a stage gastric Cancer. 2023. 16: pp. 4681–90.
15. Kim MC Comparative study of complete and partial omentectomy in radical subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer Yonsei Med J 2011 52 6 961 6 10.3349/ymj.2011.52.6.961 22028160
Kim MC, et al. Comparative study of complete and partial omentectomy in radical subtotal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2011;52(6):961–6.22028160 10.3349/ymj.2011.52.6.961
16. Songun I Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial Lancet Oncol 2010 11 5 439 49 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70070-X 20409751
Songun I, et al. Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(5):439–49.20409751 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70070-X
17. Coccolini F Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Meta-analysis of randomized trials Eur J Surg Oncol 2014 40 1 12 26 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.10.019 24290371
Coccolini F, et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(1):12–26.24290371 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.10.019
18. Ji ZH Zhang Y Li Y Intra-operative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for prevention and treatment of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer: a narrative review J Gastrointest Oncol 2021 12 Suppl 1 S70 8 10.21037/jgo-20-262 33968427
Ji ZH, Zhang Y, Li Y. Intra-operative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for prevention and treatment of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer: a narrative review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;12(Suppl 1):S70–8.33968427 10.21037/jgo-20-262
19. Montori G, Coccolini F. The treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in advanced gastric cancer: state of the art. 2014. 2014: p. 912418.
20. Granieri S Prognostic impact of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Eur J Surg Oncol 2021 47 11 2757 67 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.016 34001385
Granieri S, et al. Prognostic impact of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(11):2757–67.34001385 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.016
21. Paget S The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. 1889 Cancer Metastasis Rev 1989 8 2 98 101 2673568
Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. 1889. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1989;8(2):98–101.2673568
22. Dahdaleh FS Turaga KK Evolving treatment strategies and outcomes in Advanced Gastric Cancer with peritoneal metastasis Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2018 27 3 519 37 10.1016/j.soc.2018.02.006 29935687
Dahdaleh FS, Turaga KK. Evolving treatment strategies and outcomes in Advanced Gastric Cancer with peritoneal metastasis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2018;27(3):519–37.29935687 10.1016/j.soc.2018.02.006
23. Kusamura S Pathophysiology and biology of peritoneal carcinomatosis World J Gastrointest Oncol 2010 2 1 12 8 10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.12 21160812
Kusamura S, et al. Pathophysiology and biology of peritoneal carcinomatosis. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2(1):12–8.21160812 10.4251/wjgo.v2.i1.12
24. Wenger RH Cellular adaptation to hypoxia: O2-sensing protein hydroxylases, hypoxia-inducible transcription factors, and O2-regulated gene expression Faseb j 2002 16 10 1151 62 10.1096/fj.01-0944rev 12153983
Wenger RH. Cellular adaptation to hypoxia: O2-sensing protein hydroxylases, hypoxia-inducible transcription factors, and O2-regulated gene expression. Faseb j. 2002;16(10):1151–62.12153983 10.1096/fj.01-0944rev
25. Martínez-Reyes I Chandel NS Mitochondrial TCA Cycle Metabolites Control Physiol Disease 2020 11 1 102
Martínez-Reyes I, Chandel NS. Mitochondrial TCA Cycle Metabolites Control Physiol Disease. 2020;11(1):102.
26. Margetts PJ Oh KH Kolb M Transforming growth factor-beta: importance in long-term peritoneal membrane changes Perit Dial Int 2005 25 Suppl 3 S15 7 10.1177/089686080502503S04 16048248
Margetts PJ, Oh KH, Kolb M. Transforming growth factor-beta: importance in long-term peritoneal membrane changes. Perit Dial Int. 2005;25(Suppl 3):S15–7.16048248 10.1177/089686080502503S04
27. Nakashio T Adhesion of human gastric and pancreatic cancer cells to peritoneal mesothelial cells is mediated by CD44 and beta(1) integrin Int J Oncol 1997 10 1 183 8 21533362
Nakashio T, et al. Adhesion of human gastric and pancreatic cancer cells to peritoneal mesothelial cells is mediated by CD44 and beta(1) integrin. Int J Oncol. 1997;10(1):183–8.21533362
28. Lv ZD Induction of gastric cancer cell adhesion through transforming growth factor-beta1-mediated peritoneal fibrosis J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2010 29 1 139 10.1186/1756-9966-29-139 21034459
Lv ZD, et al. Induction of gastric cancer cell adhesion through transforming growth factor-beta1-mediated peritoneal fibrosis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29(1):139.21034459 10.1186/1756-9966-29-139
29. Hagiwara A Milky spots as the implantation site for malignant cells in peritoneal dissemination in mice Cancer Res 1993 53 3 687 92 8425204
Hagiwara A, et al. Milky spots as the implantation site for malignant cells in peritoneal dissemination in mice. Cancer Res. 1993;53(3):687–92.8425204
30. Kessenbrock K Plaks V Werb Z Matrix Metalloproteinases: Regulators Tumor Microenvironment Cell 2010 141 1 52 67 20371345
Kessenbrock K, Plaks V, Werb Z. Matrix Metalloproteinases: Regulators Tumor Microenvironment Cell. 2010;141(1):52–67.20371345
31. Honda M Matrix metalloproteinase-7 expression in gastric carcinoma Gut 1996 39 3 444 8 10.1136/gut.39.3.444 8949652
Honda M, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-7 expression in gastric carcinoma. Gut. 1996;39(3):444–8.8949652 10.1136/gut.39.3.444
32. Yonemura Y Role of MMP-7 in the formation of peritoneal dissemination in gastric cancer Gastric Cancer 2000 3 2 63 70 10.1007/PL00011698 11984713
Yonemura Y, et al. Role of MMP-7 in the formation of peritoneal dissemination in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2000;3(2):63–70.11984713 10.1007/PL00011698
33. Yonemura Y Role of VEGF-C and VEGF-D in lymphangiogenesis in gastric cancer Int J Clin Oncol 2005 10 5 318 27 10.1007/s10147-005-0508-7 16247658
Yonemura Y, et al. Role of VEGF-C and VEGF-D in lymphangiogenesis in gastric cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2005;10(5):318–27.16247658 10.1007/s10147-005-0508-7
34. Kakushima N Early gastric cancer with Krukenberg tumor and review of cases of intramucosal gastric cancers with Krukenberg tumor J Gastroenterol 2003 38 12 1176 80 10.1007/s00535-003-1227-3 14714257
Kakushima N, et al. Early gastric cancer with Krukenberg tumor and review of cases of intramucosal gastric cancers with Krukenberg tumor. J Gastroenterol. 2003;38(12):1176–80.14714257 10.1007/s00535-003-1227-3
35. Agnes A Krukenberg tumors: seed, route and soil Surg Oncol 2017 26 4 438 45 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.09.001 29113663
Agnes A, et al. Krukenberg tumors: seed, route and soil. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(4):438–45.29113663 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.09.001
36. Powless CA Random peritoneal biopsies have limited value in staging of apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer after thorough exploration Gynecol Oncol 2009 115 1 86 9 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.037 19631972
Powless CA, et al. Random peritoneal biopsies have limited value in staging of apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer after thorough exploration. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(1):86–9.19631972 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.037
37. Shroff R The utility of peritoneal biopsy and omentectomy in the upstaging of apparent early ovarian cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011 21 7 1208 12 21633295
Shroff R, et al. The utility of peritoneal biopsy and omentectomy in the upstaging of apparent early ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(7):1208–12.21633295
38. Liu J Geng X Li Y Milky spots: omental functional units and hotbeds for peritoneal cancer metastasis Tumour Biol 2016 37 5 5715 26 10.1007/s13277-016-4887-3 26831659
Liu J, Geng X, Li Y. Milky spots: omental functional units and hotbeds for peritoneal cancer metastasis. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(5):5715–26.26831659 10.1007/s13277-016-4887-3
39. Tsujimoto H Site-specific implantation in the milky spots of malignant cells in peritoneal dissemination: immunohistochemical observation in mice inoculated intraperitoneally with bromodeoxyuridine-labelled cells Br J Cancer 1995 71 3 468 72 10.1038/bjc.1995.95 7533515
Tsujimoto H, et al. Site-specific implantation in the milky spots of malignant cells in peritoneal dissemination: immunohistochemical observation in mice inoculated intraperitoneally with bromodeoxyuridine-labelled cells. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(3):468–72.7533515 10.1038/bjc.1995.95
40. Murakami H Short-term outcomes from a randomized screening phase II non-inferiority trial comparing omentectomy and Omentum Preservation for locally advanced gastric Cancer: the TOP-G trial World J Surg 2021 45 6 1803 11 10.1007/s00268-021-05988-7 33566122
Murakami H, et al. Short-term outcomes from a randomized screening phase II non-inferiority trial comparing omentectomy and Omentum Preservation for locally advanced gastric Cancer: the TOP-G trial. World J Surg. 2021;45(6):1803–11.33566122 10.1007/s00268-021-05988-7
41. Han WH Prognostic impact of infectious complications after curative gastric cancer surgery Eur J Surg Oncol 2020 46 7 1233 8 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.032 32362466
Han WH, et al. Prognostic impact of infectious complications after curative gastric cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(7):1233–8.32362466 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.032
42. Chen M Gastrectomy with omentum preservation versus gastrectomy with omentectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Surg 2021 96 106176 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106176 34763112
Chen M, et al. Gastrectomy with omentum preservation versus gastrectomy with omentectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2021;96:106176.34763112 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106176
43. Kong M et al. Overall survival advantage of Omentum Preservation over Omentectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. 2022. 46(8): pp. 1952–61.
44. Sato Y Randomized controlled Phase III trial to evaluate omentum preserving gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer (JCOG1711, ROAD-GC) World J Surg 2020 50 11 1321 4
Sato Y, et al. Randomized controlled Phase III trial to evaluate omentum preserving gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer (JCOG1711, ROAD-GC). World J Surg. 2020;50(11):1321–4.
45. Lu S, Yang ZY. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate omentum-preserving gastrectomy for patients with T1-T3 gastric cancer. 2021. 17(25): pp. 3301–7.
