1
|
Vallance PC, Mack L, Bouchard-Fortier A, Jost E. Quality of Life Following the Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Curr Oncol 2024; 31:872-884. [PMID: 38392059 PMCID: PMC10888285 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31020065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2023] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma can have a drastic impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL). There is high variability among surgeons' preferences for the type of resection and reconstructive method. Peri-operative and cancer-specific outcomes remain equivalent between the different approaches. Therefore, postoperative quality of life can be viewed as a deciding factor for the surgical approach. The goal of this study was to interrogate patient QoL using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: This systematic review was registered at Prospero and followed PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Scopus were used to perform a literature search on 18 January 2020. A set of selection criteria and the data extraction sheet were predefined. Covidence (Melbourne, Australia) software was used; two reviewers (P.C.V. and E.J.) independently reviewed the articles, and a third resolved conflicts (A.B.F.). Results: The search yielded 1446 studies; 308 articles underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 28 studies were included for qualitative analysis, including 4630 patients. Significant heterogeneity existed between the studies. Geography was predominately East Asian (22/28 articles). While all aspects of quality of life were found to be affected by a gastrectomy, most functional or symptom-specific measures reached baseline by 6-12 months. The most significant ongoing symptoms were reflux, diarrhoea, and nausea/vomiting. Discussion: Generally, patients who undergo a gastrectomy return to baseline QoL by one year, regardless of the type of surgery or reconstruction. A subtotal distal gastrectomy is preferred when proper oncologic margins can be obtained. Additionally, no one form of reconstruction following gastrectomy is statistically preferred over another. However, for subtotal distal gastrectomy, there was a trend toward Roux-en-Y reconstruction as superior to abating reflux.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lloyd Mack
- Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada (A.B.-F.)
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Antoine Bouchard-Fortier
- Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada (A.B.-F.)
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Evan Jost
- Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada (A.B.-F.)
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang F, Luo H. Effect of preoperative colonoscopy combined with preservation of the right vein of the gastric omentum during radical resection of intestinal cancer on the efficacy and prognostic indicators of the procedure. Minerva Gastroenterol (Torino) 2023; 69:396-402. [PMID: 36345870 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-5985.22.03284-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical value of preoperative colonoscopy combined with right gastroepiploic vein preservation (RGV) in radical resection of colorectal cancer for right colon cancer. METHODS A total of 120 patients with right colon cancer in our hospital from February 2019 to October 2021 were selected and randomly divided into study group (RGV preserved during operation) and control group (RGV not preserved during operation), with 60 cases in each group. Perioperative parameters, intestinal fatty acid binding protein (I-FABP), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), total protein (TP), D-lactate (D-LA), quality of life scale (SF-36) scores, incidence of complications, and tumor recurrence rate were compared between the two groups. RESULTS Duration of hospitalization was shorter in the study group than in the control group (P<0.05). Six months after surgery, I-FABP, D-LA levels and PSQI scores were lower, and TP levels and SF-36 scores were higher in the study group than in the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the study group (11.67% vs. 33.33%) was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in tumor recurrence rate 6 months after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative colonoscopy combined with RGV preservation in radical resection of colorectal cancer for right colon cancer can avoid surgical trauma caused by unnecessary transection, reduce gastrointestinal function damage, promote physical rehabilitation and shorten hospital stay, and reduce the risk of complications such as gastroparesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faqiang Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, China
| | - Huan Luo
- Department of General Surgery, Yubei District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China -
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lin GT, Chen JY, Chen QY, Que SJ, Liu ZY, Zhong Q, Wang JB, Lin JX, Lu J, Lin M, Huang ZN, Xie JW, Li P, Huang CM, Zheng CH. Patient-Reported Outcomes of Individuals with Gastric Cancer Undergoing Totally Laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Total Gastrectomy: A Real-World, Propensity Score-Matching Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:1759-1769. [PMID: 36414907 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12764-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) are two types of minimally invasive radical gastrectomy procedures to treat gastric cancer (GC). This study compared the long-term prognosis and postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between TLTG and LATG. METHODS A total of 106 patients who underwent TLTG and 1,076 patients who underwent LATG at the Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University (Fuzhou, China) between January 2014 and April 2018 were included in the propensity score matching (PSM, 1:2). Patient-reported outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months after gastrectomy were analyzed. The questionnaire referred to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item core QoL (QLQ-C30)and the GC module (QLQ-STO22) questionnaire. RESULTS After PSM, there were no significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics between the TLTG (n = 104) and the LATG groups (n = 208). Operative time and volume of blood loss were significantly lower in the TLTG group than in the LATG group. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed similar 3-year survival rates between the TLTG and LATG groups (83.7 vs. 80.3%, respectively; P = 0.462). Tolerance to nonliquid diet, decrease in body weight, and albumin levels were also significantly lower in the TLTG group than in the LATG group (all P < 0.05). The HRQoL scale demonstrated that the overall score in the TLTG group was better than that in the LATG group at 3, 6, and 12 months after gastrectomy (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Patients with GC undergoing TLTG reported better HRQoL and experienced faster recovery of social function than those undergoing LATG, although the two groups demonstrated similar short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guang-Tan Lin
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jun-Yu Chen
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Qi-Yue Chen
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Si-Jin Que
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Zhi-Yu Liu
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Qing Zhong
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jia-Bin Wang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jian-Xian Lin
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jun Lu
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Mi Lin
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Ze-Ning Huang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jian-Wei Xie
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Ping Li
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Chang-Ming Huang
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Chao-Hui Zheng
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. .,Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. .,Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Cancer (Fujian Medical University), Ministry of Education, Fuzhou, China. .,Fujian Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, Department of Medical Microbiology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Fu J, Li Y, Liu X, Jiao X, Qu H, Wang Y, Niu Z. Effects of robotic and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in the upper third of gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching. Front Surg 2023; 9:1057496. [PMID: 36684301 PMCID: PMC9845627 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1057496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was compare the effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in upper third gastric cancer patients undergoing radical total gastrectomy. Methods The clinical and follow-up data of 409 patients with upper third gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy from July 2016 to May 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a robotic group (n = 106) and a laparoscopic group (n = 303). Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size and location, pathological type, cT, cN, and cTNM were adjusted to offset selection bias. The patient characteristics, operative procedures, surgical outcomes, oncologic and pathologic outcomes, number of lymph node dissections, quality of life assessment, and nutritional status were compared between the two groups. Results After propensity score matching, 61 cases were included in the robotic group and 122 cases were included in the laparoscopic group. The number of dissected lymph nodes (37.3 ± 13.5 vs. 32.8 ± 11.8, P = 0.022) significantly differed between the two groups. The number of lower mediastinal and subphrenic lymph nodes in the robotic group was greater than that in the laparoscopic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Compared with the laparoscopic group, the total score of physical symptoms in the robotic group was significantly lower at 6 and 12 months after surgery (P = 0.03 and P = 0.001, respectively). The total social function score at 6 and 12 months after surgery was higher in the robotic group (P = 0.006 and P = 0.022). The quality of life scores were statistically significant only at 3 months after the operation (P = 0.047). A higher patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score is when the score significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with a higher related physical symptoms score, lower social function score, and lower quality of life score. Conclusion Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible. Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy was more refined, was associated with less surgical bleeding, and increased the quality of lymph node dissection. In addition, patients in the robotic group showed better postoperative quality of life.
Collapse
|
5
|
Kim TH, Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi M, Kim BH, Eom BW, Kim BJ, Min BH, Choi CI, Shin CM, Tae CH, Gong CS, Kim DJ, Cho AEH, Gong EJ, Song GJ, Im HS, Ahn HS, Lim H, Kim HD, Kim JJ, Yu JI, Lee JW, Park JY, Kim JH, Song KD, Jung M, Jung MR, Son SY, Park SH, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Kim TY, Bae WK, Koom WS, Jee Y, Kim YM, Kwak Y, Park YS, Han HS, Nam SY, Kong SH. Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach. J Gastric Cancer 2023; 23:3-106. [PMID: 36750993 PMCID: PMC9911619 DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 86.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 01/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae-Han Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea
| | - In-Ho Kim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Joo Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Seoul, Seoul, Korea
| | - Miyoung Choi
- National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, Korea
| | - Baek-Hui Kim
- Department of Pathology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bang Wool Eom
- Center for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Bum Jun Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chang In Choi
- Department of Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan, Korea
| | - Cheol Min Shin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seungnam, Korea
| | - Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Woman’s University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung sik Gong
- Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center and University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | | | - Eun Jeong Gong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Geum Jong Song
- Department of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Su Im
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea
| | - Hye Seong Ahn
- Department of Surgery, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Lim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, University of Hallym College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Hyung-Don Kim
- Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Joon Kim
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University, College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Ji Yeon Park
- Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jwa Hoon Kim
- Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyoung Doo Song
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minkyu Jung
- Division of Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Ran Jung
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Sang-Yong Son
- Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Shin-Hoo Park
- Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Soo Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sung Hak Lee
- Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae-Yong Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Kyun Bae
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Woong Sub Koom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yeseob Jee
- Department of Surgery, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Yoo Min Kim
- Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoonjin Kwak
- Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Suk Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hye Sook Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea.
| | - Su Youn Nam
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
| | - Seong-Ho Kong
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine Cancer Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hou S, Liu F, Gao Z, Ye Y. Pathological and oncological outcomes of pylorus-preserving versus conventional distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2022; 20:308. [PMID: 36153587 PMCID: PMC9508780 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02766-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 09/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) is a function-preserving surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) in the middle third of the stomach. According to the literature reports, PPG decreases the incidence of dumping syndrome, bile reflux, gallstone formation, and nutritional deficit compared with conventional distal gastrectomy (CDG). However, the debates about PPG have been dominated by the incomplete lymphadenectomy and oncological safety. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pathological and oncological outcomes of PPG.
Methods
The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42022304677. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched before February 21, 2022. The outcomes included the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. For all outcomes, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA software (Stata 14, Stata Corporation, Texas) and Review Manager 5.4.
Results
A total of 4500 patients from 16 studies were included. Compared with the CDG group, the PPG group had fewer lymph nodes harvested (WMD= −3.09; 95% CI −4.75 to −1.43; P < 0.001). Differences in the number of resected lymph nodes were observed at stations No. 5, No. 6, No. 9, and No. 11p. There were no differences in lymph node metastasis at each station. Shorter proximal resection margins (WMD = −0.554; 95% CI −0.999 to −0.108; P = 0.015) and distal resection margins (WMD = −1.569; 95% CI −3.132 to −0.007; P = 0.049) were observed in the PPG group. There were no significant differences in pathological T1a stage (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.88), T1b stage (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; P = 0.88), N0 stage (OR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48; P = 0.88), tumor size (WMD = −0.10; 95% CI −0.25 to 0.05; P = 0.187), differentiated carcinoma (OR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.47; P = 0.812) or signet ring cell carcinoma (OR = 1.22; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64; P = 0.198). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.67; P = 0.852) or recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.67; P = 0.900).
Conclusions
The meta-analysis of existing evidence demonstrated that the survival outcomes of PPG may be comparable to those of CDG. However, fewer lymph nodes at stations in No. 5, No. 6, No. 9, and No. 11p were harvested with PPG. We also found shorter proximal resection margins and distal resection margins for PPG, meaning more remnant stomachs would be preserved in PPG.
Collapse
|
7
|
Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Three-Dimensional Visualized Medical Techniques Hepatectomy for Liver Cancer with and without the Treatment of Sorafenib. EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 2022; 2022:4507673. [PMID: 36147647 PMCID: PMC9489363 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4507673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 08/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Background The application of medical image three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction technology can provide intuitive 3D image data support for accurate preoperative evaluation, surgical planning, and operation safety. However, there is still a lack of high-quality evidence to support whether 3D reconstruction technology is more advantageous in liver resection. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the clinical effects of 3D reconstruction and two-dimensional (2D) image-assisted hepatectomy. Methods Databases were searched to collect published clinical studies on 3D reconstruction technology and 2D image-assisted liver resection. Data were extracted from the database construction to March 2022 and the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software. Results A total of 13 clinical studies were included, including 1616 patients, 795 in the 2D group and 819 in the 3D group. The meta-analysis showed that the incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the 3D group than in the 2D group (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49–0.83, P=0.001) and also reduced operation time (SMD = −0.51, 95% CI = −0.74∼−0.27, P < 0.0001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −63.85, 95% CI = −98.66–29.04, P=0.0003), decreased incidence of postoperative liver failure (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = 0.99–5.95, P=0.05), decreased postoperative recurrence rate (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.16–0.53, P < 0.0001), and increased postoperative survival rate (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.49–3.23, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Current data suggest that 3D reconstruction-assisted hepatectomy can reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and recurrence, and improve postoperative survival. Therefore, the 3D reconstruction technique is worthy of application and promotion in assisted liver resection.
Collapse
|
8
|
Effects of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Advanced Gastric Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE ENGINEERING 2022. [DOI: 10.1155/2022/3255403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopy and laparotomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer by meta-analysis. Methods. Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed were searched by computer until December 1, 2021. Literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Results. A total of 1027 patients from 11 literature studies were included in this study, including 413 patients in the laparoscopic group and 614 patients in the open group. Meta-analysis showed that the laparoscopic group had less intraoperative bleeding (SMD = −1.11; 95% CI: −1.75–0.47;
), early postoperative exhaust (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI: −0.70–0.20;
), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (SMD = 0.97; 95% CI: 1.69∼0.26;
), but had longer the operation time (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52∼0.79;
). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes dissected during operation (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI: −0.42–0.19;
), the incidence of surgical complications 30 days after operation (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.53∼1.13;
), time of first defecation (MD = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.10∼0.10;
), and time of first postoperative feeding (MD = −0.05; 95% CI: −0.22∼0.12;
) between the two groups. For long-term prognosis, there was no significant difference in the 3-year overall survival rate after operation between the two groups (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.63–1.12;
). Conclusion. Compared with the open stomach cancer surgery, laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery has less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and advantages such as early rehabilitation, postoperative complications rate, and long-term survival, which confirmed the validity and security of the laparoscopic surgery.
Collapse
|
9
|
Yang J, Xie J, Xu L, Yin Y, Lao X, Yan Z. Clinical Experience of Intracorporeal Hand-sewn Anastomosis Following Totally Laparoscopic Pylorus-Preserving Gastrectomy for Middle-Third Early Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 26:659-661. [PMID: 34545544 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05132-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has been accepted as a representative function-preserving procedure for early gastric cancer (EGC) in the middle stomach. Totally, intracorporeal laparoscopic gastrectomy can provide better aesthetics, be less invasive, and allow faster postoperative recovery. Here, we first describe the surgical procedure of totally laparoscopic pylorus-preserving gastrectomy with intracorporeal hand-sewn anastomosis (TLPPG-IHSA). METHODS After standard procedure of lymph node dissection and middle stomach resection, we used two double-needle barbed sutures to perform a layer-to-layer manual anastomosis of the anterior and posterior walls in the abdominal cavity. Twelve patients with preoperatively diagnosed clinical EGC located in the middle third of the stomach underwent TLPPG-IHSA between August 2019 and January 2021. RESULTS A total of 12 patients with EGC successfully underwent TLPPG-IHSA. Only one patient (8.3%) suffered postoperative gastric stasis. No complications or recurrence occurred in other patients during half a year after surgery. CONCLUSION TLPPG-IHSA is considered technically feasible to treat EGC located in the middle third of the stomach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiabin Yang
- Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo University, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Jianming Xie
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315000, China
| | - Liushiyang Xu
- Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo University, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Yongfang Yin
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315000, China
| | - Xifeng Lao
- Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo University, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Zhilong Yan
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang Province, Ningbo, 315000, China.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wang CJ, Suh YS, Lee HJ, Park JH, Park SH, Choi JH, Alzahrani F, Alzahrani K, Kong SH, Park DJ, Cao H, Yang HK. Postoperative quality of life after gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal observation study. Ann Surg Treat Res 2022; 103:19-31. [PMID: 35919110 PMCID: PMC9300440 DOI: 10.4174/astr.2022.103.1.19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (QOL) questionnaires (QLQ-C30, QLQ-OG25, and QLQ-STO22) are widely used for the assessment of gastric cancer patients. This study aimed to use these questionnaires to evaluate QOL in postgastrectomy patients. Methods We prospectively evaluated 106 patients with distal gastrectomy (DG), 57 with pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG), and 117 with total gastrectomy (TG). Body weight and QOL questionnaires were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively (at 3 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months). Results TG patients had significantly more weight loss than DG/PPG patients. Compared with DG, patients after PPG had less dyspnea (P = 0.008) and trouble with coughing (P = 0.049), but more severe symptoms of insomnia (P = 0.037) and reflux (P = 0.030) at postoperative 12 months. Compared with DG/PPG, TG was associated with worse body image, dysphagia, eating, and taste in both OG25 and STO22. Moreover, OG25 revealed worse QOL in the TG group with respect to odynophagia, eating with others, choked when swallowing, trouble talking, and weight loss. The QOL of patients who received chemotherapy was worse than those in the chemo-free group in both physical functioning and symptoms such as nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, and trouble with taste; however, these side effects would soon disappear after finishing chemotherapy. Conclusion PPG was similar to DG in terms of postoperative QOL and maintaining body weight, while TG was always inferior to both DG and PPG. Adjuvant chemotherapy can affect both body weight and QOL despite being reversible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chao-Jie Wang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yun-Suhk Suh
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hyuk-Joon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji-Hyeon Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea
| | - Shin-Hoo Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Division of Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jong-Ho Choi
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Surgery, Eulji University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Fadhel Alzahrani
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Surgery, Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
| | - Khalid Alzahrani
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Surgery, Taif University, College of Medicine, Taif, Saudi Arabia
| | - Seong-Ho Kong
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do-Joong Park
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hui Cao
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Han-Kwang Yang
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kinami S, Nakamura N, Miyashita T, Kitakata H, Fushida S, Fujimura T, Iida Y, Inaki N, Ito T, Takamura H. Life prognosis of sentinel node navigation surgery for early-stage gastric cancer: Outcome of lymphatic basin dissection. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27:8010-8030. [PMID: 35046627 PMCID: PMC8678813 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i46.8010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2021] [Revised: 06/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lymphatic basin dissection is a sentinel node biopsy method that is specific for gastric cancer. In this method, the dyed lymphatic system is dissected en bloc, and sentinel nodes are identified at the back table (ex vivo). Even with lymphatic basin dissection, blood flow to the residual stomach can be preserved, and function-preserving curative gastrectomy can be performed. The oncological safety of function-preserving curative gastrectomy combined with lymphatic basin dissection has not yet been fully investigated. We hypothesized that the oncological safety of sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) is not inferior to that of the guidelines. AIM To investigate the life prognosis of SNNS for gastric cancer in comparison with guidelines surgery. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were selected from gastric cancer patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy from April 1999 to March 2016. Patients from April 1999 to August 2008 were from the Department of Surgery II, Kanazawa University Hospital, and patients from August 2009 to March 2016 were from the Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University Hospital. Patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer, which was preoperatively diagnosed as superficial type (type 0), 5 cm or less in length, clinical T1-2 and node negative, and underwent various gastrectomies guided by sentinel node navigation were retrospectively collected. The overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) of these patients (SNNS group) were investigated. Patients with gastric cancer of the same stage and who underwent guidelines gastrectomy with standard nodal dissection were also selected as the control group. RESULTS A total of 239 patients in the SNNS group and 423 patients in the control group were included. Pathological nodal metastasis was observed in 10.5% and 10.4% of the SNNS and control groups, respectively. The diagnostic abilities of sentinel node biopsy were 84% and 98.6% for sensitivity and accuracy, respectively. In the SNNS group, 81.6% of patients underwent modified gastrectomy or function-preserving curative gastrectomy with lymphatic basin dissection, in which the extent of nodal dissection was further reduced compared to the guidelines. The OS rate in the SNNS group was 96.8% at 5 years and was significantly better than 91.3% in the control group (P = 0.0014). The RFS rates were equal in both groups. After propensity score matching, there were 231 patients in both groups, and the cumulative recurrence rate was 0.43% at 5 years in the SNNS group and 1.30% in the control group, which was not statistically different. CONCLUSION The oncological safety of patients who undergo gastrectomy guided by sentinel node navigation is not inferior to that of the guidelines surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shinichi Kinami
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Naohiko Nakamura
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Tomoharu Miyashita
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Hidekazu Kitakata
- Department of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Sachio Fushida
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Takashi Fujimura
- Department of Surgery, Toyama City Hospital, Toyama 939-8511, Toyama, Japan
| | - Yasuo Iida
- Department of Mathematics, Division of General Education, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Noriyuki Inaki
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Toru Ito
- Department of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Takamura
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Yanzhang W, Guanghua L, Zhihao Z, Zhixiong W, Zhao W. The risk of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer conforming to indications of endoscopic resection and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:1280. [PMID: 34837993 PMCID: PMC8627613 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-09008-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Lymph node metastasis (LNM) status is an important prognostic factor that strongly influences the treatment decision of early gastric cancer (EGC). This study aimed to evaluate the pattern and clinical significance of LNM in EGC. Methods A total of 354 patients with carcinoma in situ (n = 42), EGC (n = 312) who underwent radical gastrectomy were enrolled. Their clinicopathological features, pathological reports, and prognostic data were collected and analyzed. Results The incidence of LNM in all patients was 18.36% (65/354). The rates of D1 and D2 station metastases were 12.10% (43/354) and 6.21% (22/354), respectively. The rates of LNM in absolute indication of endoscopic resection and expanded indication were 3.27% (2/61) and 28.55% (4/14), respectively. Skip LNM was observed in 3.67% (13/354) of patients. For those with middle-third tumor, the metastasis rate of the No. 5 lymph node was 3.05% (5/164). The independent risk factors for LNM were tumors measuring > 30 mm, poorly differentiated tumors, and lymphovascular invasion (all P < 0.05; area under the curve, 0.783). The 5-year disease-free survival rates of patients with and without LNM were 96.26 and 79.17%, respectively (P = 0.011). Tumors measuring > 20 mm and LNM were independent predictive factors for poor survival outcome in all patients. Conclusions Patients with EGC conforming to expanded indications have a relatively high risk of LNM and may not be suitable for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for patients with middle-third EGC remains controversial due to the high metastasis rate of the No. 5 lymph node.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wu Yanzhang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan 2nd street, No. 58, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Li Guanghua
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan 2nd street, No. 58, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Zhou Zhihao
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan 2nd street, No. 58, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Wang Zhixiong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan 2nd street, No. 58, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
| | - Wang Zhao
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan 2nd street, No. 58, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Min JS, Jeong SH, Park JH, Kim T, Jung EJ, Ju YT, Jeong CY, Kim JY, Park M, Lee YJ. A comparison of quality of life between patients with small and large gastric remnant volumes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e26954. [PMID: 34414961 PMCID: PMC8376383 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000026954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
The impact of gastric remnant volumes (GRVs) after gastrectomy on patients' quality of life (QOL) has not yet been clarified. The aim of the present study was to compare QOL after gastrectomy between small and large gastric remnant volume patients.We prospectively collected clinical data from 78 consecutive patients who underwent distal gastrectomy with Billroth II gastrojejunostomy for gastric cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Stomach questionnaire and gastric computed tomography scans were performed. The patients were subdivided into 2 groups by remnant stomach volume (the S group ≤110 mL vs L group >110 mL).The worst scores for most items were observed at postoperative month 1 and usually improved thereafter. There was no difference in the STO22 score except for dysphagia between the S and L groups after gastrectomy (P > .05). The QOL score of dysphagia was different at postoperative 6 months (S vs L, 12.4 vs 22.8, P < .03), but there was no difference at postoperative months 1, 3, 12, 24, or 36 (P > .05).The remnant gastric volume after partial gastrectomy affects neither functional differences nor QOL after 6 months following appropriate radical surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jae-Seok Min
- Department of Surgery, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Cancer Center, Busan, South Korea
| | - Sang-Ho Jeong
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, South Korea
| | - Ji-Ho Park
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea
| | - Taehan Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, South Korea
| | - Eun-Jung Jung
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, South Korea
| | - Young-Tae Ju
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea
| | - Chi-Young Jeong
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea
| | - Ju-Yeon Kim
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea
| | - Miyeong Park
- Department of Anesthesiology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Republic of Korea
| | - Young-Joon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Zheng Z, Yin J, Liu XY, Yan XS, Xu R, Li MY, Cai J, Chen GY, Zhang J, Zhang ZT. Current indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 13:560-573. [PMID: 34163573 PMCID: PMC8204359 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i6.560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Revised: 03/31/2021] [Accepted: 05/22/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
The development of endoscopic treatment technology has further promoted the minimally invasive treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC). Endoscopic treatment has achieved better therapeutic effects in terms of safety and prognosis and is the preferred treatment method for patients who meet the indications for endoscopic treatment. However, the consequent problem is that some patients receiving endoscopic treatment may undergo non-curative resection, and the principle of follow-up management for non-curative resection patients deserves further attention. In addition, there are still debates on how to improve the accuracy of clinical staging, select a reasonable treatment method for patients who meet the expanded indications for endoscopic treatment, manage patients with positive endoscopic surgical margins, conduct research on function-preserving surgery, and manage the treatment of EGC under the current situation in China. Consequently, we aim to review current indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection of EGC in order to better inform treatment options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhi Zheng
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Jie Yin
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Xiao-Ye Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Xiao-Sheng Yan
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Rui Xu
- Department of Pathology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Meng-Yi Li
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Jun Cai
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Guang-Yong Chen
- Department of Pathology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Jun Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Zhong-Tao Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nakada K, Kawashima Y, Kinami S, Fukushima R, Yabusaki H, Seshimo A, Hiki N, Koeda K, Kano M, Uenosono Y, Oshio A, Kodera Y. Comparison of effects of six main gastrectomy procedures on patients’ quality of life assessed by Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45. World J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 13:461-475. [PMID: 34122736 PMCID: PMC8167845 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i5.461] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Revised: 02/21/2021] [Accepted: 04/22/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The effects of various gastrectomy procedures on the patient’s quality of life (QOL) are not well understood. Thus, this nationwide multi-institutional cross-sectional study using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45), a well-established questionnaire designed to clarify the severity and characteristics of the postgastrectomy syndrome, was conducted.
AIM To compare the effects of six main gastrectomy procedures on the postoperative QOL.
METHODS Eligible questionnaires retrieved from 2368 patients who underwent either of six gastrectomy procedures [total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TGRY; n = 393), proximal gastrectomy (PG; n = 193), distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (DGRY; n = 475), distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I reconstruction (DGBI; n = 909), pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG; n = 313), and local resection of the stomach (LR; n = 85)] were analyzed. Among the 19 main outcome measures of PGSAS-45, the severity and characteristics of postgastrectomy syndrome were compared for the aforementioned six gastrectomy procedures using analysis of means.
RESULTS TGRY and PG significantly impaired the QOL of postoperative patients. Postoperative QOL was excellent in LR (cardia and pylorus were preserved with minimal resection). In procedures removing the distal stomach, diarrhea subscale (SS) and dumping SS were less frequent in PPG than in DGBI and DGRY. However, there was no difference in the postoperative QOL between DGBI and DGRY. The most noticeable adverse effects caused by gastrectomy were meal-related distress SS, dissatisfaction at the meal, and weight loss, with significant differences among the surgical procedures.
CONCLUSION Postoperative QOL greatly differed among six gastrectomy procedures. The severity and characteristics of postgastrectomy syndrome should be considered to select gastrectomy procedures, overcome surgical shortcomings, and enhance postoperative care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koji Nakada
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, Japan
| | - Yoshiyuki Kawashima
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama 362-0806, Japan
| | - Shinichi Kinami
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Kahoku-gun 920-0293, Ishikawa, Japan
| | - Ryoji Fukushima
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo 173-8605, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Yabusaki
- Department of Surgery, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata 951-8566, Japan
| | - Akiyoshi Seshimo
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo 160-0023, Japan
| | - Naoki Hiki
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan
| | - Keisuke Koeda
- Department of Medical Safety Science, Iwate Medical University, Iwate 028-3695, Japan
| | - Mikihiro Kano
- Department of Surgery, Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima 731-0293, Japan
| | - Yoshikazu Uenosono
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Imamura General Hospital, Kagoshima 890-0064, Japan
| | - Atsushi Oshio
- Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Waseda University, Tokyo 162-8644, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Kodera
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
| |
Collapse
|