Total vs proximal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the upper third of the stomach: a propensity-score-matched analysis of a multicenter western experience (On behalf of the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer–GIRCG)
- 545 Downloads
The aim of this study is to compare surgical outcomes including postoperative complications and prognosis between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) for proximal gastric cancer (GC). Propensity-score-matching analysis was performed to overcome patient selection bias between the two surgical techniques.
Among 457 patients who were diagnosed with GC between January 1990 and December 2010 from four Italian institutions, 91 underwent PG and 366 underwent TG. Clinicopathologic features, postoperative complications, and survivals were reviewed and compared between these two groups retrospectively.
After propensity-score matching had been done, 150 patients (75 TG patients, 75 PG patients) were included in the analysis. The PG group had smaller tumors, shorter resection margins, and smaller numbers of retrieved lymph nodes than the TG group. N stages and 5-year survival rates were similar after TG and PG. Postoperative complication rates after PG and TG were 25.3 and 28%, respectively, (P = 0.084). Rates of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture were 12 and 6.6% after PG and 2.6 and 1.3% after TG, respectively (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002). 5-year overall survival for PG and TG group was 56.7 and 46.5%, respectively (P = 0.07). Survival rates according to the tumor stage were not different between the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that type of resection was not an independent prognostic factor.
Although PG for upper third GC showed good results in terms of survival, it is associated with an increased mortality rate and a higher risk of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stricture.
KeywordsUpper third gastric cancer Total gastrectomy Proximal gastrectomy
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Human and animal rights statement
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.
- 6.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):101–112.Google Scholar
- 16.Cordiano C, Mangiante G, Giacopuzzi S, de Manzoni G. Proximal gastrectomy: technical notes. In: de Manzoni G, Roviello F, Siquini W, editors. Surgery in the multimodal management of gastric cancer. Springer-Verlag Italia; 2012. p. 247–250.Google Scholar
- 17.Sobin LH, Wittekind C, Gospodarowicz M, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumors (UICC). 7th ed. New York: Wiley; 2009. p. 73–7.Google Scholar
- 19.Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(187–96):14.Google Scholar
- 22.Kaibara N, Nishimura O, Nishidoi H, et al. Proximal gastrectomy as the surgical procedure of choice for upper gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 1987;36(2):110–112.Google Scholar
- 35.Takiguchi N, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, Inagawa S, Ueda S, Nobuoka T, Ota M, Iwasaki Y, Uchida N, Kodera Y, Nakada K. Long-term quality-of-life comparison of total gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy by postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS-45): a nationwide multi-institutional study. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18:407–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar