0 1

Cited 0 times in

Cited 0 times in

Transpacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal gastrectomy vs. minimally invasive total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers: 3-month follow-up results

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorIkoma, Naruhiko-
dc.contributor.authorGrotz, Travis-
dc.contributor.authorKawakubo, Hirofumi-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hyoung-Il-
dc.contributor.authorMatsuda, Satoru-
dc.contributor.authorOkui, Jun-
dc.contributor.authorTomita, Koichi-
dc.contributor.authorHirata, Yuki-
dc.contributor.authorNakao, Atsushi-
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Loretta A.-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xin Shelley-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xuemei-
dc.contributor.authorMansfield, Paul F.-
dc.contributor.authorHyung, Woo-Jin-
dc.contributor.authorBadgwell, Brian D.-
dc.contributor.authorStrong, Vivian E.-
dc.contributor.authorKitagawa, Yuko-
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-16T06:37:23Z-
dc.date.available2026-01-16T06:37:23Z-
dc.date.created2026-01-02-
dc.date.issued2025-12-
dc.identifier.issn0930-2794-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/209803-
dc.description.abstractBackground Total gastrectomy (TG) remains the standard surgical approach for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers. However, experts increasingly perform proximal gastrectomy (PG) with anti-reflux reconstruction. The benefits of minimally invasive PG (MIPG) over minimally invasive TG (MITG), particularly regarding postoperative quality of life (QoL), remain unclear. Methods We conducted a transpacific, multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective cohort study to compare symptom burden outcomes (symptom occurrence, symptom severity, and daily functioning) between MIPG and MITG in patients with P/GEJ cancers. Symptom burden data was collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-GI +). Results Among 71 patients with P/GEJ cancers enrolled from 2022 through 2024, 64 underwent either MITG (n = 26, 41%) or MIPG (n = 38, 59%). Thirty-nine (61%) patients were treated at Asian centers, and 25 (39%) patients were treated at U.S. centers. Compared to the MIPG patients, the MITG patients had a larger mean tumor size (5.7 vs. 2.3 cm) and a higher prevalence of signet ring cell histology (50 vs. 18%). Operation times were comparable between the MITG and MIPG groups (median: 288.5 vs. 277.0 min), as were the rates of postoperative complications (19 vs. 24%), anastomotic leaks (0 vs. 3%), 90-day mortality (0 vs. 3%), and positive proximal margins (8 vs. 0%, all p > 0.05). QoL data (MDASI-GI +) were collected from at least 95% of patients at all time points. Key metrics related to QoL-appetite, reflux, total symptom burden, and functional interference-did not differ significantly between groups at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. A linear mixed-effects model showed that body-weight trajectories over time did not differ significantly between the MITG and MIPG groups, and there was no significant difference between their highest weight loss percentages within the first 3 months postoperatively. At postoperative month 3, hemoglobin, albumin, vitamin B12, and ghrelin levels were comparable between the groups. Conclusion MIPG and MITG demonstrated equivalent short-term safety, and MIPG did not confer measurable QoL advantages, including in appetite, within 3 months after surgery. Longer-term follow-up is ongoing to evaluate potential delayed advantages.-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherSpringer-
dc.relation.isPartOfSURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES-
dc.relation.isPartOfSURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHEsophageal Neoplasms* / pathology-
dc.subject.MESHEsophageal Neoplasms* / surgery-
dc.subject.MESHEsophagogastric Junction* / pathology-
dc.subject.MESHEsophagogastric Junction* / surgery-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHFollow-Up Studies-
dc.subject.MESHGastrectomy* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHGastrectomy* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHMinimally Invasive Surgical Procedures* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHPostoperative Complications / epidemiology-
dc.subject.MESHPostoperative Complications / etiology-
dc.subject.MESHProspective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHQuality of Life-
dc.subject.MESHStomach Neoplasms* / pathology-
dc.subject.MESHStomach Neoplasms* / surgery-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleTranspacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal gastrectomy vs. minimally invasive total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers: 3-month follow-up results-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.googleauthorIkoma, Naruhiko-
dc.contributor.googleauthorGrotz, Travis-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKawakubo, Hirofumi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, Hyoung-Il-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMatsuda, Satoru-
dc.contributor.googleauthorOkui, Jun-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTomita, Koichi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHirata, Yuki-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNakao, Atsushi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWilliams, Loretta A.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWang, Xin Shelley-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWang, Xuemei-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMansfield, Paul F.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHyung, Woo-Jin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBadgwell, Brian D.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorStrong, Vivian E.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKitagawa, Yuko-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00464-025-12257-4-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02703-
dc.identifier.eissn1432-2218-
dc.identifier.pmid41023216-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-025-12257-4-
dc.subject.keywordRobotic gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordProximal gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordTotal gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordPatient-reported outcomes-
dc.subject.keywordQuality of life-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Hyoung-Il-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorHyung, Woo-Jin-
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-105017397475-
dc.identifier.wosid001584273300001-
dc.citation.volume39-
dc.citation.number12-
dc.citation.startPage8371-
dc.citation.endPage8384-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationSURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, Vol.39(12) : 8371-8384, 2025-12-
dc.identifier.rimsid90703-
dc.type.rimsART-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorRobotic gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorProximal gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorTotal gastrectomy-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorPatient-reported outcomes-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorQuality of life-
dc.subject.keywordPlusQUALITY-OF-LIFE-
dc.subject.keywordPlusDOUBLE-TRACT RECONSTRUCTION-
dc.subject.keywordPlusUPPER 3RD-
dc.subject.keywordPlusADENOCARCINOMA-
dc.subject.keywordPlusOUTCOMES-
dc.type.docTypeArticle; Early Access-
dc.description.isOpenAccessN-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscie-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscopus-
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategorySurgery-
dc.relation.journalResearchAreaSurgery-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Surgery (외과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.