Back to Search Start Over

Trans-pacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers.

Authors :
Ikoma, Naruhiko
Grotz, Travis
Kawakubo, Hirofumi
Kim, Hyoung-Il
Matsuda, Satoru
Hirata, Yuki
Nakao, Atsushi
Williams, Loretta A.
Wang, Xin Shelley
Mendoza, Tito
Wang, Xuemei
Badgwell, Brian D.
Mansfield, Paul F.
Hyung, Woo-Jin
Strong, Vivian E.
Kitagawa, Yuko
Source :
BMC Surgery; 9/1/2023, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p1-9, 9p
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Background: The current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss due to the loss of gastric functions such as production of ghrelin and with anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B<subscript>12</subscript> malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG. Methods: Enrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared. Discussion: Surgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG. Trial registration: This trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022–00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14712482
Volume :
23
Issue :
1
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
BMC Surgery
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
171309085
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02163-8