BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare effectiveness between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) for proximal gastric cancer. METHODOLOGY: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Chinese CNKI databases were searched to select eligible studies comparing TG to PG for proximal gastric cancer. Outcome measures included overall survival, recurrence, mortality and morbidity rates, as well as nutritional states. Meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.0. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and 7 retrospective studies involving 1077 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference of 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.89, p=0.53). However, TG achieved a lower recurrence rate (Peto OR=0.53, p=0.004). PG experienced higher morbidity risk (OR=0.11, p<0.00001), concerning higher risks of reflux esophagitis (OR=0.04, p<0.00001) and anastomotic stenosis (OR=0.14, p<0.00001) in a short period. TG performed longer operation time (p=0.002) and more blood loss (p<0.00001). Operative mortality and nutritional states were comparable without significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current retrospective evidences, TG and PG had similar overall survival outcome for proximal gastric cancer, but TG showed lower recurrence rate. PG with gastroesophagostomy had higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis. TG can be recommendation for proximal gastric cancer, although more high-quality trials are still expected.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare effectiveness between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) for proximal gastric cancer. METHODOLOGY: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Chinese CNKI databases were searched to select eligible studies comparing TG to PG for proximal gastric cancer. Outcome measures included overall survival, recurrence, mortality and morbidity rates, as well as nutritional states. Meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.0. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and 7 retrospective studies involving 1077 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference of 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.89, p=0.53). However, TG achieved a lower recurrence rate (Peto OR=0.53, p=0.004). PG experienced higher morbidity risk (OR=0.11, p<0.00001), concerning higher risks of reflux esophagitis (OR=0.04, p<0.00001) and anastomotic stenosis (OR=0.14, p<0.00001) in a short period. TG performed longer operation time (p=0.002) and more blood loss (p<0.00001). Operative mortality and nutritional states were comparable without significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current retrospective evidences, TG and PG had similar overall survival outcome for proximal gastric cancer, but TG showed lower recurrence rate. PG with gastroesophagostomy had higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis. TG can be recommendation for proximal gastric cancer, although more high-quality trials are still expected.