Ling Tan1, Meng-Ni Ran2, Zi-Lin Liu1, Ling-Han Tang1, Zhou Ma1, Zhou He1, Zhou Xu1, Fang-Han Li1, Jiang-Wei Xiao3. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Clinical Medical College and The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, 610500, Sichuan, China. 2. Pharmaceutical Department, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital, Chongqing, 404000, China. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Clinical Medical College and The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, 610500, Sichuan, China. xiaojiangwei2018@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the long-term prognosis and short-term postoperative complications of different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer (PGC). METHODS: We searched for articles published in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and February 1, 2021. We screened out the literature comparing different surgical strategies. We then evaluated the long-term and short-term outcome of different surgical strategies using a network meta-analysis, which summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between different surgical strategies for 5-year overall survival (OS), anastomotic leakage, or weight loss after 1 year. Compared with total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TG-RY) and proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR), the proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (PG-EG) strategy significantly increased the incidence of reflux esophagitis; and the operation time and blood loss of the PG-EG strategy were significantly less than those of the other surgical strategies. The anastomotic stenosis rates of the PG-EG and proximal gastrectomy with jejunum interstitial (PG-JI) strategies were significantly higher than those of TG-RY and PG-DTR; the hemoglobin level after 1 year for the PG-DTR strategy was significantly higher than that of the TG-RY strategy. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive literature research found that different surgical strategies had no significant difference in the long-term survival of PGC, but the incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis after PG-DTR and TG-RY was significantly reduced.
BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the long-term prognosis and short-term postoperative complications of different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer (PGC). METHODS: We searched for articles published in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and February 1, 2021. We screened out the literature comparing different surgical strategies. We then evaluated the long-term and short-term outcome of different surgical strategies using a network meta-analysis, which summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between different surgical strategies for 5-year overall survival (OS), anastomotic leakage, or weight loss after 1 year. Compared with total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TG-RY) and proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR), the proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (PG-EG) strategy significantly increased the incidence of reflux esophagitis; and the operation time and blood loss of the PG-EG strategy were significantly less than those of the other surgical strategies. The anastomotic stenosis rates of the PG-EG and proximal gastrectomy with jejunum interstitial (PG-JI) strategies were significantly higher than those of TG-RY and PG-DTR; the hemoglobin level after 1 year for the PG-DTR strategy was significantly higher than that of the TG-RY strategy. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive literature research found that different surgical strategies had no significant difference in the long-term survival of PGC, but the incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis after PG-DTR and TG-RY was significantly reduced.
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702