Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.
Locally advanced proximal gastric cancer (LAPGC)
proximal gastrectomy (PG)
survival
total gastrectomy (TG)
Journal
Translational cancer research
ISSN: 2219-6803
Titre abrégé: Transl Cancer Res
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101585958
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
accepted:
03
02
2020
entrez:
4
2
2022
pubmed:
1
4
2020
medline:
1
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The safety and efficacy of proximal gastrectomy (PG) following for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer (LAPGC) were unclear, as oncologic outcomes of randomized trials are still pending. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical results and long-term oncologic outcomes of PG versus total gastrectomy (TG) in treating locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). A total of 2,918 LAPGC patients with PG or TG were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) 1998-2018. Propensity score matching was employed to match patients with PG or TG in a 1:1 ratio. Surgery outcomes and overall survival (OS) rates were compared between PG and TG groups after the propensity-score match. Cox proportional hazards model was used to explore the risk factors for OS. Of 2,918 patients, 181 (6.20%) underwent TG, while 2,737 (93.80%) underwent PG. After propensity score matching, 150 matched pairs for PG and TG were selected. Compared with TG group, PG group had shorter operative time (181.8±49.8 In conclusion, the extent of resection for LAPGC patients did not influence the long-term survival outcomes. Moreover, future randomized clinical trials of quality of life following PG or TG are expected to assist surgeons in the choice of surgical approach and strategy for LAPGC patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of proximal gastrectomy (PG) following for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer (LAPGC) were unclear, as oncologic outcomes of randomized trials are still pending. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical results and long-term oncologic outcomes of PG versus total gastrectomy (TG) in treating locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 2,918 LAPGC patients with PG or TG were identified from the China National Cancer Center Gastric Cancer Database (NCCGCDB) 1998-2018. Propensity score matching was employed to match patients with PG or TG in a 1:1 ratio. Surgery outcomes and overall survival (OS) rates were compared between PG and TG groups after the propensity-score match. Cox proportional hazards model was used to explore the risk factors for OS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 2,918 patients, 181 (6.20%) underwent TG, while 2,737 (93.80%) underwent PG. After propensity score matching, 150 matched pairs for PG and TG were selected. Compared with TG group, PG group had shorter operative time (181.8±49.8
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the extent of resection for LAPGC patients did not influence the long-term survival outcomes. Moreover, future randomized clinical trials of quality of life following PG or TG are expected to assist surgeons in the choice of surgical approach and strategy for LAPGC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35117635
doi: 10.21037/tcr.2020.02.38
pii: tcr-09-04-2769
pmc: PMC8799083
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2769-2779Informations de copyright
2020 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2020.02.38). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
World J Surg. 2005 Dec;29(12):1592-9
pubmed: 16311849
Surgery. 1998 Feb;123(2):127-30
pubmed: 9481396
J Gastric Cancer. 2014 Dec;14(4):246-51
pubmed: 25580356
Acta Chir Belg. 2003 Nov-Dec;103(6):611-5
pubmed: 14743570
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Sep;21(5):845-852
pubmed: 29423892
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Apr;63(4):1035-1042
pubmed: 29397493
Gastric Cancer. 2019 Sep;22(5):1029-1035
pubmed: 30778799
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Dec;22 Suppl 3:S929-35
pubmed: 25986867
World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jan 21;12(3):354-62
pubmed: 16489633
J Surg Oncol. 1995 Oct;60(2):83-8
pubmed: 7564386
World J Surg. 2011 Mar;35(3):617-24
pubmed: 21203759
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Jun;22(6):669-78
pubmed: 19474750
Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Feb;36(1):50-5
pubmed: 20396565
World J Surg. 2006 Oct;30(10):1870-6; discussion 1877-8
pubmed: 16957826
Gastric Cancer. 2011 Jun;14(2):113-23
pubmed: 21573742
Gastric Cancer. 2014 Jan;17(1):141-5
pubmed: 23558459
World J Surg. 2013 Mar;37(3):558-64
pubmed: 23254949
Int Surg. 2012 Jul-Sep;97(3):275-9
pubmed: 23113860
Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):587-91
pubmed: 18519129
J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2010 Aug;30(4):530-5
pubmed: 20714884
J Surg Oncol. 1987 Oct;36(2):110-2
pubmed: 3657174
Kurume Med J. 2014;61(1-2):23-9
pubmed: 25152248
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2013 Jun;44(2):143-51
pubmed: 23435833
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;24(6):1635-1642
pubmed: 28130623
Int J Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1941-1953
pubmed: 30350310
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Aug;401(5):687-97
pubmed: 27143021
Surg Endosc. 2016 Aug;30(8):3426-36
pubmed: 26511124
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):3961-3969
pubmed: 28342130