Cargando…

Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

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 ve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Lulu, Ling, Rui, Ma, Fuhai, Ren, Hu, Zhou, Hong, Wang, Tongbo, Chen, Yingtai, Hu, Shangying, Zhao, Dongbing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8799083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35117635
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2020.02.38
_version_ 1784641982647238656
author Zhao, Lulu
Ling, Rui
Ma, Fuhai
Ren, Hu
Zhou, Hong
Wang, Tongbo
Chen, Yingtai
Hu, Shangying
Zhao, Dongbing
author_facet Zhao, Lulu
Ling, Rui
Ma, Fuhai
Ren, Hu
Zhou, Hong
Wang, Tongbo
Chen, Yingtai
Hu, Shangying
Zhao, Dongbing
author_sort Zhao, Lulu
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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 vs. 213.5±66.7 min, P<0.001) and less estimated blood transfusion (10.00% vs. 22.67%, P=0.001). More lymph nodes (34.3±17.0 vs. 24.2±11.0, P<0.001) were retrieved in TG group than in PG group. The 3- and 5-year OS rates (79.1% vs. 77.2% and 74.5% vs. 72.0%, respectively, both P<0.001) in PG group were slightly higher than ones in TG group. However, the multivariable results showed that there was no significant difference in the OS status between the two groups (HR: 1.172, 95% CI: 0.916–1.499, P=0.208), even stratified into stage II and III subgroup. 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8799083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87990832022-02-02 Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis Zhao, Lulu Ling, Rui Ma, Fuhai Ren, Hu Zhou, Hong Wang, Tongbo Chen, Yingtai Hu, Shangying Zhao, Dongbing Transl Cancer Res Original Article 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: 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: 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 vs. 213.5±66.7 min, P<0.001) and less estimated blood transfusion (10.00% vs. 22.67%, P=0.001). More lymph nodes (34.3±17.0 vs. 24.2±11.0, P<0.001) were retrieved in TG group than in PG group. The 3- and 5-year OS rates (79.1% vs. 77.2% and 74.5% vs. 72.0%, respectively, both P<0.001) in PG group were slightly higher than ones in TG group. However, the multivariable results showed that there was no significant difference in the OS status between the two groups (HR: 1.172, 95% CI: 0.916–1.499, P=0.208), even stratified into stage II and III subgroup. 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. AME Publishing Company 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8799083/ /pubmed/35117635 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2020.02.38 Text en 2020 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Zhao, Lulu
Ling, Rui
Ma, Fuhai
Ren, Hu
Zhou, Hong
Wang, Tongbo
Chen, Yingtai
Hu, Shangying
Zhao, Dongbing
Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title_full Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title_short Clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
title_sort clinical outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8799083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35117635
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2020.02.38
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaolulu clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT lingrui clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT mafuhai clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT renhu clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT zhouhong clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT wangtongbo clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT chenyingtai clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT hushangying clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT zhaodongbing clinicaloutcomesofproximalgastrectomyversustotalgastrectomyforlocallyadvancedproximalgastriccancerapropensityscorematchinganalysis