scholarly journals Proximal Gastrectomy Is a Viable Alternative to Total Gastrectomy in Early Stage Proximal Gastric Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. e2021.00017
Author(s):  
Beth Schrope ◽  
Barbara Coons ◽  
Vilma Rosario ◽  
Sabrina Toledano
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Viable Alternative ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer

scholarly journals Short-term and long-term comparisons of laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy by the double-flap technique and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242223
Author(s):  
Tomoko Tsumura ◽  
Shinji Kuroda ◽  
Masahiko Nishizaki ◽  
Satoru Kikuchi ◽  
Yoshihiko Kakiuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Flap Technique ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Although proximal gastrectomy (PG) is a recognized surgical procedure for early proximal gastric cancer, total gastrectomy (TG) is sometimes selected due to concern about severe gastroesophageal reflux. Esophagogastrostomy by the double-flap technique (DFT) is an anti-reflux reconstruction after PG, and its short-term effectiveness has been reported. However, little is known about the long-term effects on nutritional status and quality of life (QOL). Methods Gastric cancer patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted PG (LAPG) with DFT or laparoscopy-assisted TG (LATG) between April 2011 and March 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) were reviewed to assess nutritional status, and the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale (PGSAS)-45 was used to assess QOL. Results A total of 36 patients (LATG: 17, LAPG: 19) were enrolled. Four of 17 LATG patients (24%) were diagnosed with Stage ≥II after surgery, and half received S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy. BW and PNI were better maintained in LAPG than in LATG patients until 1-year follow-up. Seven of 16 LATG patients (44%) were categorized as “underweight (BMI<18.5 kg/m2)” at 1-year follow-up, compared to three of 18 LAPG patients (17%; p = 0.0836). The PGSAS-45 showed no significant difference in all QOL categories except for decreased BW (p = 0.0132). Multivariate analysis showed that LATG was the only potential risk factor for severe BW loss (odds ratio: 3.03, p = 0.0722). Conclusions LAPG with DFT was superior to LATG in postoperative nutritional maintenance, and can be the first option for early proximal gastric cancer.

Proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianchang Wei ◽  
Ping Yang ◽  
Qing Huang ◽  
Zhuanpeng Chen ◽  
Tong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Survival Curve ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Tumor Differentiation ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
End Results

Aims: To addresses whether surgical procedure (proximal gastrectomy [PG] vs total gastrectomy [TG]) influences survival outcomes. Methods: Patients were selected from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER) database. Survival curve was used to evaluate the differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results: No significant difference was detected in OS and CSS time between PG and TG groups. Also, no significant differences were observed in OS and CSS times between the two groups with respect to clinical stage, tumor stage, node stage, age, gender and tumor differentiation. Tumor differentiation, tumor size, tumor stage, node stage and age were independent prognostic factors in patients with proximal gastric cancer. Conclusions: TG was not necessary for proximal gastric cancer patients, and PG may be considered as an ideal surgery approach.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Proximal Gastrectomy versus Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lulu Zhao ◽  
Rui Ling ◽  
Jinghua Chen ◽  
Anchen Shi ◽  
Changpeng Chai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Early Gastric Cancer ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Term Survival

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The extent of optimal gastric resection for proximal gastric cancer (PGC) continues to remain controversial, and a final consensus is yet to be met. The current study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and overall survival (OS) of proximal gastrectomy (PG) versus total gastrectomy (TG) in the treatment of PGC through a meta-analysis. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for articles published in English since database establishment to October 2019. Evaluated endpoints were perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and long-term survival outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 2,896 patients in 25 full-text articles were included, of which one was a prospective randomized study, one was a clinical phase III trial, and the rest were retrospective comparative studies. The PG group showed a higher incidence of anastomotic stenosis (OR = 2.21 [95% CI: 1.08–4.50]; <i>p</i> = 0.03) and reflux symptoms (OR = 3.33 [95% CI: 1.85–5.99]; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) when compared with the TG group, while no difference was found in PG patients with double-tract reconstruction (DTR). The retrieved lymph nodes were clearly more in the TG group (WMD = −10.46 [95% CI: −12.76 to −8.17]; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). The PG group was associated with a better 5-year OS relative to TG with 11 included studies (OR = 1.35 [95% CI: 1.03–1.77]; <i>p</i> = 0.03). After stratification for early gastric cancer and PG with DTR groups, however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (OR = 1.35 [95% CI: 0.59–2.45]; <i>p</i> = 0.62). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In conclusion, PG was associated with a visible improved long-term survival outcome for all irrespective of tumor stage, while a similar 5-year OS for only early gastric cancer patients between the 2 groups. Future randomized clinical trials of esophagojejunostomy techniques, such as DTR following PG, are expected to prevent postoperative complications and assist surgeons in the choice of surgical approach for PGC patients.

scholarly journals Various Kinds of Functional Digestive Tract Reconstruction Methods After Proximal Gastrectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuaibing Lu ◽  
Fei Ma ◽  
Zhandong Zhang ◽  
Liangqun Peng ◽  
Wei Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Digestive Tract ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Reconstruction Method ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Reconstruction Methods

The incidence of proximal gastric cancer has shown a rising trend in recent years. Surgery is still the main way to cure proximal gastric cancer. Total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection was considered to be the standard procedure for proximal gastric cancer in the past several decades. However, in recent years, many studies have confirmed that proximal gastrectomy can preserve part of the stomach function and can result in a better quality of life of the patient than total gastrectomy. Therefore, proximal gastrectomy is increasingly used in patients with proximal gastric cancer. Unfortunately, there are some concerns after proximal gastrectomy with traditional esophagogastrostomy. For example, the incidence of reflux esophagitis in patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy with traditional esophagogastrostomy is significantly higher than those patients who underwent total gastrectomy. To solve those problems, various functional digestive tract reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy have been proposed gradually. In order to provide some help for clinical treatment, in this article, we reviewed relevant literature and new clinical developments to compare various kinds of functional digestive tract reconstruction methods after proximal gastrectomy mainly from perioperative outcomes, postoperative quality of life and survival outcomes aspects. After comparison and discussion, we drew the conclusion that various functional reconstruction methods have their own advantages and disadvantages; large scale high-level clinical studies are needed to choose an ideal reconstruction method in the future. Besides, in clinical practice, surgeons should consider the condition of the patient for individualized selection of the most appropriate reconstruction method.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta−Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peirong Tian ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
Shibo Bian ◽  
Mengyi Li ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Reflux Esophagitis ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Anastomotic Stenosis ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy

BackgroundTo compare laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with regard to outcomes, including efficacy and safety, in patients with proximal gastric cancer.MethodsOriginal English-language articles comparing LPG and LTG for proximal gastric cancer up to November 2019 were systematically searched in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases by two independent reviewers. Our main endpoints were surgery-related features (operation time, blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative hospital stay), postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic stenosis, and reflux esophagitis), and oncologic outcomes (5-year overall survival and recurrent cancer).ResultsFourteen studies including a total of 1,282 cases (510 LPG and 772 LTG) were enrolled. Fewer lymph nodes were harvested (WMD = −13.33, 95% CI: −15.66 to −11.00, P &lt; 0.00001) and more postoperative anastomotic stenosis (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.39, P = 0.007) observed in LPG than LTG. There were no significant differences in other explored parameters between the two methods. However, based on a subgroup analysis of digestive tract reconstruction, LPG with esophagogastrostomy (LPG-EG) had shorter operative time (WMD = −42.51, 95% CI: −58.99 to −26.03, P &lt; 0.00001), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −79.52, 95% CI: −116.63 to −42.41, P &lt; 0.0001), and more reflux esophagitis (OR = 3.92, 95% CI: 1.56 to 9.83, P = 0.004) than was observed for LTG. There was no difference between LPG performed with the double tract anastomosis/double-flap technique (DT/DFT) and LTG.ConclusionLPG can be performed as an alternative to LTG for proximal gastric cancer, especially LPG-DT/DFT, with comparable safety and efficacy.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction for upper third gastric cancer

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuo-meng Xiao ◽  
Ping Zhao ◽  
Zhi Ding ◽  
Rui Xu ◽  
Chao Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Nutrition Status ◽  
Proximal Gastric Cancer ◽  
Double Tract Reconstruction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Laparoscopic Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients ◽  
Upper Third

Abstract Background Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (DTR) has been used for upper third gastric cancer as a function-preserving procedure. However, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with DTR remain uncertain. This study compared open proximal gastrectomy (OPG) with DTR and LPG with DTR for proximal gastric cancer. Methods Sixty-four patients who had undergone OPG with DTR and forty-six patients who had undergone LPG with DTR were enrolled in this case–control study. The clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes and postoperative nutrition index were analysed retrospectively. Results The operation time was significantly longer in the LGP group than in the OPG group (258.3 min vs 205.8 min; p = 0.00). However, the time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the LPG group [4.0 days vs 3.5 days (p = 0.00) and 10.6 days vs 9.2 days (p = 0.001), respectively]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the number of retrieved lymph nodes, complications or reflux oesophagitis. The nutrition status was assessed using the haemoglobin, albumin, prealbumin and weight levels from pre-operation to six months after surgery. No significant difference was found between the groups. Conclusion LPG with DTR can be safely performed for proximal gastric cancer patients by experienced surgeons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document