Effects of Proximal Gastrectomy and Various Clinical Factors on Postoperative Quality of Life for Upper-third Gastric Cancer Assessed using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45): A PGSAS NEXT Study.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
22
09
2021
accepted:
06
11
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
entrez:
6
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is important to determine the effect of clinical factors on several domains (symptoms, living status, and quality of life [QOL]) after gastrectomy to establish individualized therapeutic strategies. This study was designed to determine the factors-particularly surgical method-that influence certain domains after gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer by using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45) questionnaire. We conducted a nationwide study of PGSAS-45 questionnaire responses retrieved from 1950 (82.5%) patients from 70 institutions who had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Of these, 1,538 responses for proximal gastric cancer (1020 total gastrectomies and 518 proximal gastrectomies [PGs]) were examined. PG significantly and favorably affected four main outcome measures (MOMs): elderly affected 10 MOMs, male sex affected 4 MOMs, longer postoperative period affected 8 MOMs, preservation of the vagus nerve affected 1 MOM, adjuvant chemotherapy affected 1 MOM, clinical stage affected 2 MOMs, and more extensive lymph node dissection affected 2 MOMs. However, the laparoscopic approach had an adverse effect on MOMs and combined resection of other organs had no favorable effect on any MOMs. This PGSAS NEXT study showed that it is better to perform PG for proximal gastric cancer, even for patients with advanced cancer, to obtain favorable postoperative QOL if oncological safety is guaranteed. Because the MOMs of PGSAS-45 are positively and negatively influenced by various background factors, it also is necessary to provide personalized care for each patient to prevent deterioration and further improve symptoms, living status, and QOL postoperatively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is important to determine the effect of clinical factors on several domains (symptoms, living status, and quality of life [QOL]) after gastrectomy to establish individualized therapeutic strategies. This study was designed to determine the factors-particularly surgical method-that influence certain domains after gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer by using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45) questionnaire.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a nationwide study of PGSAS-45 questionnaire responses retrieved from 1950 (82.5%) patients from 70 institutions who had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Of these, 1,538 responses for proximal gastric cancer (1020 total gastrectomies and 518 proximal gastrectomies [PGs]) were examined.
RESULTS
RESULTS
PG significantly and favorably affected four main outcome measures (MOMs): elderly affected 10 MOMs, male sex affected 4 MOMs, longer postoperative period affected 8 MOMs, preservation of the vagus nerve affected 1 MOM, adjuvant chemotherapy affected 1 MOM, clinical stage affected 2 MOMs, and more extensive lymph node dissection affected 2 MOMs. However, the laparoscopic approach had an adverse effect on MOMs and combined resection of other organs had no favorable effect on any MOMs.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This PGSAS NEXT study showed that it is better to perform PG for proximal gastric cancer, even for patients with advanced cancer, to obtain favorable postoperative QOL if oncological safety is guaranteed. Because the MOMs of PGSAS-45 are positively and negatively influenced by various background factors, it also is necessary to provide personalized care for each patient to prevent deterioration and further improve symptoms, living status, and QOL postoperatively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34988838
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-11136-1
pii: 10.1245/s10434-021-11136-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3899-3908Informations de copyright
© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Asaka M, Kobayashi M, Kudo T, et al. Gastric cancer deaths by age group in Japan: Outlook on preventive measures for elderly adults. Cancer Sci. 2020;111:3845–53.
doi: 10.1111/cas.14586
Tokunaga M, Hiki N, Fukunaga T, Ohyama S, Yamaguchi T, Nakajima T. Better 5-year survival rate following curative gastrectomy in overweight patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:3245–51.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0645-8
Li Y, Li J, Li J. Two updates on oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma from the fifth WHO classification: alteration of definition and emphasis on HER2 test. Histol Histopathol. 2021;36:339–46.
pubmed: 33377175
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines. Gastric Cancer. 2018;24:1–21.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-020-01042-y
Tsumura T, Kuroda S, Nishizaki M, et al. Short-term and long-term comparisons of laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy by the double-flap technique and laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0242223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242223 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242223
pubmed: 33180871
pmcid: 7660475
Asaoka R, Irino T, Makuuchi R, et al. Changes in body weight, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue after gastrectomy: a comparison between proximal gastrectomy and total gastrectomy. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89:79–83.
doi: 10.1111/ans.15023
Nakada K, Ikeda M, Takahashi M, et al. Characteristics and clinical relevance of postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS)-45: newly developed integrated questionnaires for assessment of living status and quality of life in postgastrectomy patients. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18:147–58.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-014-0344-4
Nakada K, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, et al. Factors affecting the quality of life of patients after gastrectomy as assessed using the newly developed PGSAS-45 scale: a nationwide multi-institutional study. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:8978–90.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i40.8978
Bernhardt D, Adeberg S, Bozorgmehr F, et al. Outcome and prognostic factors in patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer treated with whole brain radiotherapy. J Neurooncol. 2017;134:205–12.
doi: 10.1007/s11060-017-2510-0
Bozec A, Majoufre C, De Boutray MD, et al. Oral and oropharyngeal cancer surgery with free-flap reconstruction in the elderly: factors associated with long-term quality of life, patient needs and concerns A GETTEC cross-sectional study. Surg Oncol. 2020;35:81–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.08.014
Lee SS, Chung HY, Kwon OK, Yu W. Long-term quality of life after distal subtotal and total gastrectomy: symptom- and behavior-oriented consequences. Ann Surg. 2016;263:738–44.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001481
Tanaka C, Kanda M, Murotani K, et al. Long-term quality of life and nutrition status of the aboral pouch reconstruction after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective multicenter observational study (CCOG1505). Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:607–16.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0893-z
Wei M, Wang N, Yin Z, et al. Short-term and quality of life outcomes of patients using linear or circular stapling in esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:1667–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04806-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04806-0
pubmed: 32989689
Youn SI, Son SY, Lee K, et al. Quality of life after laparoscopic sentinel node navigation surgery in early gastric cancer: a single-center cohort study. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24:744–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-020-01145-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10120-020-01145-6
pubmed: 33389274
Ronellenfitsch U, Najmeh S, Andalib A, et al. Functional outcomes and quality of life after proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy using a narrow gastric conduit. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:772–9.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4078-7
Nakamura M, Nakamori M, Ojima T, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing long-term quality of life for Billroth I versus Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2016;103:337–47.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10060
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
Takiguchi N, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, et al. 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.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-014-0377-8
Cumming Geoff. The new statistics: why and how. Sychological Sci. 2014;25:7–29.
Kunisaki C, Makino H, Kimura J, et al. Application of reduced-port laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer preserving the pancreas and spleen. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18:868–75.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-014-0441-4
Nakauchi M, Vos E, Janjigian YY, et al. Comparison of long- and short-term outcomes in 845 open and minimally invasive gastrectomy’s for gastric cancer in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:3532–44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09798-y .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09798-y
pubmed: 33709174
Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Single-arm confirmatory trial of laparoscopy-assisted total or proximal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage I gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG1401. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:999–1008.
doi: 10.1007/s10120-019-00929-9
Katai H, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, et al. Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:142–51.
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30332-2
Kinami S, Takahashi M, Urushihara T, Nakada K. Background factors influencing postgastrectomy syndromes after various types of gastrectomy. World J Clin Cases. 2018;6:1111–20.
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i16.1111