Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 558–564 | Cite as

Long-term Outcome after Proximal Gastrectomy with Jejunal Interposition for Gastric Cancer Compared with Total Gastrectomy

  • Isao Nozaki
  • Shinji Hato
  • Takaya Kobatake
  • Koji Ohta
  • Yoshirou Kubo
  • Akira Kurita
Article

Abstract

Background

Proximal gastrectomy (PG) has been widely accepted as treatment for early gastric cancer located in the upper third of the stomach. Reconstruction by jejunal interposition has been known to reduce reflux esophagitis for PG patients. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent PG with jejunal interposition with those treated by total gastrectomy (TG).

Methods

Data on 102 cases of PG with jejunal interposition and 49 cases of TG with Roux-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer were analyzed retrospectively in terms of overall survival, weight maintenance, anemia and nutritional status, and endoscopic findings.

Results

Median follow-up time was 59 months in the both groups. There was no significant difference in the overall 5-year survival rate between the PG group (94 %) and the TG group (84 %). The PG group showed significantly better body weight maintenance at the first year. The laboratory blood tests showed that the PG group had a significantly better red blood cell count and hemoglobin and hematocrit levels at the second and third year. However, postoperative endoscopic surveillance detected reflux esophagitis (3 %), peptic ulcer (9 %), and metachronous gastric cancer (5 %) in the PG group.

Conclusions

Proximal gastrectomy maintains comparable oncological radicality to TG and is preferred over TG in terms of preventing postoperative anemia. However, periodic endoscopic follow-up is necessary to monitor the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Keywords

Gastric Cancer Total Gastrectomy Reflux Esophagitis Remnant Stomach Proximal Gastrectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

I. Nozaki, S. Hato, T. Kobatake, K. Ohta, Y. Kubo, and A. Kurita have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This work was supported in part by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (23-A-19).

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM (2001) Global cancer statistics in the year 2000. Lancet Oncol 2:533–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salvon-Harman JC, Cady B, Nikulasson S et al (1994) Shifting proportions of gastric adenocarcinomas. Arch Surg 129:381–388; discussion 388–389Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu Y, Kaneko S, Sobue T (2004) Trends in reported incidences of gastric cancer by tumour location, from 1975 to 1989 in Japan. Int J Epidemiol 33:808–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mori M, Kitagawa S, Iida M et al (1987) Early carcinoma of the gastric cardia. A clinicopathologic study of 21 cases. Cancer 59:1758–1766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoo CH, Sohn BH, Han WK et al (2004) Long-term results of proximal and total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the upper third of the stomach. Cancer Res Treat 36:50–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrison LE, Karpeh MS, Brennan MF (1998) Total gastrectomy is not necessary for proximal gastric cancer. Surgery 123:127–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaibara N, Nishimura O, Nishidoi H et al (1987) Proximal gastrectomy as the surgical procedure of choice for upper gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 36:110–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    An JY, Youn HG, Choi MG et al (2008) The difficult choice between total and proximal gastrectomy in proximal early gastric cancer. Am J Surg 196:587–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hsu CP, Chen CY, Hsieh YH et al (1997) Esophageal reflux after total or proximal gastrectomy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia. Am J Gastroenterol 92:1347–1350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buhl K, Schlag P, Herfarth C (1990) Quality of life and functional results following different types of resection for gastric carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 16:404–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katai H, Sano T, Fukagawa T et al (2003) Prospective study of proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach. Br J Surg 90:850–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katai H, Morita S, Saka M et al (2010) Long-term outcome after proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition for suspected early cancer in the upper third of the stomach. Br J Surg 97:558–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tokunaga M, Ohyama S, Hiki N et al (2008) Endoscopic evaluation of reflux esophagitis after proximal gastrectomy: comparison between esophagogastric anastomosis and jejunal interposition. World J Surg 32:1473–1477. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9459-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wen L, Chen XZ, Wu B et al (2012) Total vs. proximal gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterology 59:633–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kikuchi S, Nemoto Y, Katada N et al (2007) Results of follow-up endoscopy in patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition for gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 54:304–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shiraishi N, Adachi Y, Kitano S et al (2002) Clinical outcome of proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer. World J Surg 26:1150–1154. doi: 10.1007/s00268-002-6369-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoo CH, Sohn BH, Han WK et al (2005) Proximal gastrectomy reconstructed by jejunal pouch interposition for upper third gastric cancer: prospective randomized study. World J Surg 29:1592–1599. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-7793-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katsoulis IE, Robotis JF, Kouraklis G et al (2006) What is the difference between proximal and total gastrectomy regarding postoperative bile reflux into the oesophagus? Dig Surg 23:325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, Stomach, ICD-O C16 (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 73–77Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (1998) Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma—2nd english edition. Gastric Cancer 1:10–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL et al (1996) The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 111:85–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kubo M, Sasako M, Gotoda T et al (2002) Endoscopic evaluation of the remnant stomach after gastrectomy: proposal for a new classification. Gastric Cancer 5:83–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nozaki I, Nasu J, Kubo Y et al (2010) Risk factors for metachronous gastric cancer in the remnant stomach after early cancer surgery. World J Surg 34:1548–1554. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0518-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoshikawa T, Denno R, Ura H et al (2001) Proximal gastrectomy and jejunal pouch interposition: evaluation of postoperative symptoms and gastrointestinal hormone secretion. Oncol Rep 8:1293–1299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tomita R, Fujisaki S, Tanjoh K et al (2001) Operative technique on nearly total gastrectomy reconstructed by interposition of a jejunal J pouch with preservation of vagal nerve, lower esophageal sphincter, and pyloric sphincter for early gastric cancer. World J Surg 25:1524–1531. doi: 10.1007/s00268-001-0163-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hinoshita E, Takahashi I, Onohara T et al (2001) The nutritional advantages of proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 48:1513–1516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bae JM, Park JW, Yang HK et al (1998) Nutritional status of gastric cancer patients after total gastrectomy. World J Surg 22:254–260; discussion 260–251. doi: 10.1007/s002689900379 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miholic J, Meyer HJ, Muller MJ et al (1990) Nutritional consequences of total gastrectomy: the relationship between mode of reconstruction, postprandial symptoms, and body composition. Surgery 108:488–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kikuchi S, Hirai T, Katada N et al (2000) Marginal ulcer on the jejunum after proximal gastrectomy by jejunal interposition. Hepatogastroenterology 47:1579–1580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nozaki I, Kurita A, Nasu J et al (2007) Higher incidence of gastric remnant cancer after proximal than distal gastrectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 54:1604–1608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (2011) Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3). Gastric Cancer 14:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isao Nozaki
    • 1
  • Shinji Hato
    • 1
  • Takaya Kobatake
    • 1
  • Koji Ohta
    • 1
  • Yoshirou Kubo
    • 1
  • Akira Kurita
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of SurgeryShikoku Cancer CenterMatsuyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations