MCO Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2049-9450 2049-9469 D.A. Spandidos MCO-21-5-02775 10.3892/mco.2024.2775 Articles Gastric cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta‑analysis FotakopoulosGeorge 1 ChristodoulidisGrigorios 2 GeorgakopoulouVasiliki Epameinondas 3 TrakasNikolaos 4 SkapaniPagona 4 PanagiotopoulosKonstantinos 5 SpandidosDemetrios A. 6 ForoglouNicolas 7 Department of Neurosurgery, General University Hospital of Larisa, 41221 Larisa, Greece Department of General Surgery, General University Hospital of Larisa, 41221 Larisa, Greece Department of Pathophysiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece Department of Biochemistry, Sismanogleio Hospital, 15126 Athens, Greece Biochemistry Laboratory, General Hospital of Athens ‘Georgios Gennimatas’, 11527 Athens, Greece Laboratory of Clinical Virology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71003 Heraklion, Greece First Department of Neurosurgery, AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece Correspondence to: Dr George Fotakopoulos, Department of Neurosurgery, General University Hospital of Larisa, Mezourlo 1, 41221 Larisa, Greece gfotakop@yahoo.gr wangqiang@wust.edu.cn 11 2024 19 08 2024 21 5 77 07 06 2024 06 08 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Fotakopoulos et al. 2024 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Gastric cancer (GC) constitutes one of the most wide-ranging cancers, with brain metastasis (BM) being a markedly uncommon and unfavorable outcome. The present meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between no-surgical treatment vs. additional surgical BM resection on the patient's quality of life and potential survival using electronic databases, including PubMed (1980-April 2024), Medline (1980-April 2024), Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (1980-April 2024). After a literature search, six articles were included in the final study pool. The number of patients with BM and conservative treatment was 289 (80.05%) compared with those that underwent an additional surgical resection 72 (19.95%). The mean age was 59.2 years, and the males were 195 (73.8%) of 264 available from five studies. The findings of the present meta-analysis revealed that the curative effect of BM tumor resection on patients with GC undergoing additional treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery, whole-brain radiotherapy or chemotherapy was favorable for their survival.

 gastric cancer brain metastasis surgical resection survival outcomes conservative or no-surgical treatment Funding: No funding was received. Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) constitutes one of the most wide-ranging cancers, with >1 million affected patients each year (1), and usually recurs as metastasis to the liver and peritoneum (2). However, brain metastasis (BM) is very uncommon (<1%), and the prognosis is markedly unfavorable compared with CG metastasis to other organs, with a median survival at this stage of the cancer approximately 2 to 4 months (3).

Due to the relative rarity of the disease, a significant number of patients with GC quickly succumb to the disease after receiving a diagnosis of BM, or BM is identified after death in numerous autopsies (4). In addition, there are relatively few studies with GC and developed BM, and management options such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or chemotherapy, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and surgical resection are still under examination (5).

In this respect, the present meta-analysis assessed the relationship between no-surgical treatment (SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy) vs. the additional microsurgical BM resection in terms of the patient's quality of life and potential survival advantage.

 Materials and methods <sec> <title>Literature search strategy

The meta-analysis investigated studies that compared no-surgical treatments (SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy) with studies that involved surgery for BM resection. The studies were found in electronic databases such as PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?db=PMC) (1980-April 2024), Medline (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_home.html) (1980-April 2024), Cochrane Library (https://library.udel.edu/databases/cochrane/), and EMBASE (https://libguides.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/medicine/database/embase) (1980-April 2024). A protocol and documentation plan was created by applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (6). The following key words were used for the search: ‘Gastric cancer’, ‘brain metastasis’, and ‘gastric cancer and brain metastasis’.

 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The current meta-analysis assembled the PICOS parameters from the included studies (7). Inclusion of studies was based on the following: i) The population was limited to patients with GC and BM; ii) An additional surgical intervention for BM was implemented; iii) survival outcomes were compared and analyzed; and iv) the overall survival of GC patients with BM who received additional surgical management was quantified. In order to mitigate publication bias, the ultimate goal was to gather a uniform set of studies that solely assessed two modalities: A comparison between no-surgical treatments such as SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy, and an additional surgical BM resection for patients with GC.

All the articles that were case reports, reviews, editorials, and not in English were excluded. Articles with pediatric populations, novel procedures in the investigational phase, those that included only one of the two management options, and those that disclosed doubtful results were also excluded. Two investigators (GF, a neurosurgeon and GC, a gastric cancer surgeon) individually extracted information from the enclosed articles using the epidemiology principles of meta-analysis. In cases of disagreement, the decision of an additional author was considered. The post-interventional outcomes stated in the last collection of articles were evaluated at least 6 months following surgical treatment (surgical resection of BM in patients with GC). In addition, to reduce the risk of bias in the included articles, a quality assessment tool (the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was used (Table I) (8). All patients with GC were divided into two groups: Those with no-surgical treatment (SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy) and those with an additional surgical BM resection.

 Statistical analysis

All data were evaluated via Review Manager Software (RevMan), version 5.4 (https://www.risetku.com/blog/revman). I2 statistics assessed heterogeneity among studies. Α meta-analysis was evaluated using a random-effect model. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

 Results

Baseline characteristics. Following the prime literature search, 42 studies were suitable for additional investigation. When all the criteria were applied, six articles were included in the final study pool (Fig. 1) (5,9-13). The entire data of these studies are presented in Table II. The total sample of patients collected from these six articles with GC was 32.372, and from these patients 361 (1.1%) were identified with BM. The number of patients with BM and no-surgical treatment was 289 (80.1%) compared with those that underwent an additional surgical resection which was 72 (19.9%). The mean age of the patients was 59.2 years, and the males were 195 (73.9%) of the 264 available from five studies (5,9-12) (Table II).

<sec> <title>Survival >6 months

Data was gathered from six articles (5,9-13). In the entire group of patients with GC and BM, there were 76 out of the 361 (21.1%) patients [39 of 289 (13.5%) in the no-surgical treatment group, and 37 out of the 72 (51.4%) with an additional surgical BM resection], showing a statistically significant difference between the groups (OR, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.52 to 8.52; P<0.05) with no heterogeneity (P=0.96 and I2=0%) (Fig. 2 and Table III), and thus the superiority of the additional surgical BM resection group compared with no-surgical treatment group; Fig. 2) (Table III). When studying the funnel plot of the same parameter, it was observed that the study results showed no publication bias (Fig. 3).

 Discussion <sec> <title>Prognosis of patients with BM from GC

BM constitutes ~13% of all brain tumors, with the primary malignancy mostly found in the lung and secondarily in the breast (14). Considering that BM from GC is extremely rare and usually occurs hematogenously with a markedly unfavorable outcome, the present meta-analysis revealed that additional surgical treatment of BM was associated with an improved prognosis (survival, >6 months) than no-surgical management (SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy). It was determined that in the entire group of patients with GC and BM, there were 51.4% of patients with an additional surgical BM resection compared with 13.5% in those with no-surgical treatment, which had improved outcomes (survival, >6 months).

 Frequency of BM and GC

BM accounts for ~13% of central nervous system (CNS) tumors and mainly originates from melanoma, chorioepitheliomas and lung cancer (14). On the other hand, GC is the 5th most frequent tumor metastasizing to various organs, with markedly unfavorable outcomes (15). BM in patients with GC is relatively rare (0.5-0.7%), and in most cases, the diagnosis occurs at a late stage, which may signify that the survival of those patients is markedly short (16). In the present meta-analysis, BM was identified in 1.1% of the total number of patients with GC.

 Conversion therapy of GC with BM and survival

The main approach for managing GC according to literature is palliative chemotherapy (17). On the other hand, conversion therapy, an expansion of exchange chemotherapy, aids in achieving surgical resection of a primary tumor that was initially considered to be technically difficult to approach or inoperable, encompassing the utililization of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or target therapy for a locally advanced tumor. In terms of palliative management, conversion therapy can result in extended survival times and improved outcomes for patients with metastatic GC (18).

 Surgical resection as the sole treatment for the primary tumor of GC with BM and survival

As only 10% of patients with metastatic GC underwent surgical removal, surgical procedures on the primary tumor mostly improved the outcome of these patients (5). Conversely, compared with patients with BM, patients with GC with lung and liver metastases exhibited an improved prognosis (5). In addition, the location and the number of BMs also influenced the outcome of patients with GC. Thus, the prognosis of metastatic GC is not easy to detect, and the resection alone of the primary tumor may be better when it includes a BM site. The meta-analysis showed that an additional surgical removal of BM is related to favorable outcomes.

 Prognosis in patients with GC and BM

A median age of >65 years old, signet ring cell carcinoma histological type, and the IV stage of GC constitute some of the main parameters related to unfavorable outcomes and low patient survival with GC and BM (19). According to the literature, the prognosis of patients with metastatic GC depends on the metastatic location, with the most unfavorable outcome in those patients with BM compared with metastasis in the lung and liver (20,21). In addition, the number and site of the metastatic lesions in the brain could also influence the survival of patients (5). New therapeutic protocols and the development of imaging equipment have led to early detection of patients with GC and BM, ultimately improving the quality of life of these patients (22). In addition, surgical management of both the primary tumor and BM in patients with GC, in combination with chemotherapy, SRS or WBRT, has extended the survival time of this fatal disease (18). The present meta-analysis revealed that the additional surgical treatment of BM compared with no-surgical management (SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy) achieved a >6-month survival in 21.1% of patients with GC and BM.

 Limitation

A limitation of the present study is that the meta-analysis pool consisted of relatively small sample sizes; consequently, the results require further validation with a large-scale sample size.

 Conclusion of the findings

The findings of the present meta-analysis revealed that the curative effect of BM tumor resection on patients with GC compared with additional no-surgical treatment using SRS, WBRT or chemotherapy was favorable for their survival. However, further studies on carefully selected patients are necessary to confirm these findings.

 Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

 Availability of data and materials

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

 Authors' contributions

GF and NF conceptualized the present study. VEG, DAS, GC, PS, KP, NT, GF and NF evaluated the data and wrote and prepared the draft of the manuscript. NF and GF applied critical revisions. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data authentication is not applicable.

 Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

 Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

 Competing interests

DAS is the Editor-in-Chief for the journal, but had no personal involvement in the reviewing process, or any influence in terms of adjudicating on the final decision, for this article. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 References RawlaPBarsoukAEpidemiology of gastric cancer: Global trends, risk factors and preventionPrz Gastroenterol14263820193094467510.5114/pg.2018.80001 DengJLiangHWangDSunDPanYLiuYInvestigation of the recurrence patterns of gastric cancer following a curative resectionSurg Today4121021520112126475610.1007/s00595-009-4251-y GasparLScottCRotmanMAsbellSPhillipsTWassermanTMcKennaWGByhardtRRecursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trialsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys377457511997912894610.1016/s0360-3016(96)00619-0 AbramsHlSpiroRGoldsteinNMetastases in carcinoma; analysis of 1000 autopsied casesCancer3748519501540568310.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<74::aid-cncr2820030111>3.0.co;2-7 YorkJEStringerJAjaniJAWildrickDMGokaslanZLGastric cancer and metastasis to the brainAnn Surg Oncol677177619991062250610.1007/s10434-999-0771-3 FosterRLReporting guidelines: CONSORT, PRISMA, and SQUIREJ Spec Pediatr Nurs171220122218826610.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00319.x Amir-BehghadamiMJanatiAPopulation, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviewsEmerg Med J3738720203225319510.1136/emermed-2020-209567 BaeJMA suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiologyEpidemiol Health38e201601420162715634410.4178/epih.e2016014 KasakuraYFujiiMMochizukiFSuzukiTTakahashiTClinicopathological study of brain metastasis in gastric cancer patientsSurg Today3048549020001088345610.1007/s005950070112 QiuMZShiSMChenZHYuHEShengHJinYWangDSWangFHLiYHXieDFrequency and clinicopathological features of metastasis to liver, lung, bone, and brain from gastric cancer: A SEER-based studyCancer Med73662367220182998491810.1002/cam4.1661 LiYXieDChenXHuTLuSHanYPrognostic value of the site of distant metastasis and surgical interventions in metastatic gastric cancer: A population-based studyTechnol Cancer Res Treat19153303382096413120203311164410.1177/1533033820964131 IshizukaYOmoriTShinnoNYamamotoMHaraHOtsukaTNishioMNishidaNFujisawaFSugimotoNEarly detection of brain metastases and appropriate local therapy followed by systemic chemotherapy may improve the prognosis of gastric cancerSci Rep132080520233801218510.1038/s41598-023-46933-z Baccili Cury MegidTBaskurtZMaLXBarronCCFarooqASaltielMPWangXBachYAyoamaHJangRWLeptomeningeal carcinomatosis and brain metastases in gastroesophageal carcinoma: A real-world analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomesJ Neurooncol16711112220243837290210.1007/s11060-024-04576-8 Global Burden of Disease Cancer CollaborationFitzmauriceCAbateDAbbasiNAbbastabarHAbd-AllahFAbdel-RahmanOAbdelalimAAbdoliAAbdollahpourIGlobal, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease studyJAMA Oncol51749176820193156037810.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996 RiihimäkiMHemminkiASundquistKSundquistJHemminkiKMetastatic spread in patients with gastric cancerOncotarget7523075231620162744757110.18632/oncotarget.10740 DavisFGDolecekTAMcCarthyBJVillanoJLToward determining the lifetime occurrence of metastatic brain tumors estimated from 2007 United States cancer incidence dataNeuro Oncol141171117720122289837210.1093/neuonc/nos152 Japanese Gastric Cancer AssociationJapanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3)Gastric Cancer1411312320112157374210.1007/s10120-011-0042-4 GuoQLiQWangJLiuMWangYChenZYeYGuanQZhouYA comprehensive evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of celecoxib in combination with chemotherapy in metastatic or postoperative recurrent gastric cancer patients: A preliminary, three-center, clinical trial studyMedicine (Baltimore)98e1623420193127713810.1097/MD.0000000000016234 LiuGXuMGaoTXuLZengPBoHLiFZhangWWangZSurgical compliance and outcomes in gastric cancer: A population-based cohort studyJ Cancer1077978820193085408310.7150/jca.29073 InoueKNakaneYKogireMFujitaniKKimuraYImamuraHTamuraSOkanoSKwonAHKurokawaYPhase II trial of preoperative S-1 plus cisplatin followed by surgery for initially unresectable locally advanced gastric cancerEur J Surg Oncol3814314920122215488510.1016/j.ejso.2011.11.009 YamaguchiKYoshidaKTanahashiTTakahashiTMatsuhashiNTanakaYTanabeKOhdanHThe long-term survival of stage IV gastric cancer patients with conversion therapyGastric Cancer2131532320182861674310.1007/s10120-017-0738-1 LuoDLiuQYuWMaYZhuJLianPCaiSLiQLiXPrognostic value of distant metastasis sites and surgery in stage IV colorectal cancer: A population-based studyInt J Colorectal Dis331241124920182993140810.1007/s00384-018-3091-x

Flow chart of identification and eligibility of articles.

Forest plot of the >6-month survival. The results exhibited a statistically significant difference [(OR, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.52-8.52) and P<0.05] without heterogeneity (P=0.96 and I2=0%). I2, the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance; CI, confidence interval.

Funnel plot of the >6-month survival between groups, without heterogeneity (P=0.96 and I2=0%), and thus with no publication bias. OR, odds ratio.

Newcastle-Ottawa scale quality assessment of the final article pool.

  Newcastle-Ottawa scale  
First author, year Study design Selection Comparability Exposure Total scores (Refs.)
York et al, 1999 One single center, retrospective 3 3 3 9 (5)
Kasakura et al, 2000 One single center, retrospective 3 2 2 7 (9)
Qiu et al, 2018 Multicenter, retrospective 3 3 3 9 (10)
Li et al, 2020 Multicenter, retrospective 3 2 2 7 (11)
Ishizuka et al, 2023 One single center, retrospective 3 2 2 7 (12)
Baccili Cury Megid et al, 2024 One single center, retrospective 3 3 3 9 (13)

Design and baseline characteristics of the included study trials.

  Sample size   >6-month survival  
First author, year Total no. of patients with GC Total no. of patients with GC and BM BM no-surgical treatment BM plus surgical treatment Mean age of patients with BM (years) No. of male patients with BM Follow-up (years) Stage of advanced cancer Location of BM Time from GC to BM (months) BM no-surgical Treatment BM plus Surgical Treatment (Refs.)
York et al, 1999 3,320 24 14 10 53 18 40 III or more 14 supratentorial, 3 infratentorial, 7 multiple 9 (1-23) 5 6 (5)
Kasakura et al, 2000 2,322 11 8 3 54.6 9 18 III or more 7 multiple, 4 solitary supratentorial 9.6 (0.1-43.7) 1 2 (9)
Qiu et al, 2018 19,022 151 139 12 61.3 113 5 NR 99 multiple, 52 solitary supratentorial NR 4 2 (10)
Li et al, 2020 4,221 59 41 18 51.1 44 2 NR 12 multiple, 47 solitary supratentorial NR 12 12 (11)
Ishizuka et al, 2023 1,257 16 12 4 71 11 10 II or III 12 multiple, 7 solitary supratentorial 12.9 2 2 (12)
Baccili Cury Megid et al, 2024 2,230 100 75 25 64.4 NR 14 III or more NR 6.7 (3,4-13,8) 15 13 (13)
Summary 32.372 361 289 (80.1%) 72 (19.9%) 59.2 195 of 264 (73.9%) - - - - 39 of 289 (13.5%) 37 of 72 (51.4%) -

GC, gastric cancer; BM, brain metastasis; NR, not reported.

The outcome results of the meta-analysis.

  Groups Overall effect Heterogeneity
Parameters No. of studies Total no. of patients with BM and no-surgical treatment Total no. of patients with BM plus surgical treatment >6-month survival of patients with BM and no-surgical treatment >6-month survival of patients with BM plus surgical treatment Effect estimate 95% CI P-value I2 (%) P-value
>6-month survival 6 289 72 39 37 4.63 (2.52-8.52) <0.05 0 0.96

BM, brain metastasis; I2, the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance; CI, confidence interval.