Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Gastric Cancer | Protocol

Optimal reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis update

Authors: Zhou Zhao, Hancong Li, Xiangcheng Pan, Chaoyong Shen, Mingchun Mu, Xiaonan Yin, Jing Liao, Zhaolun Cai, Bo Zhang

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Distal gastrectomy (DG) is a commonly used surgical procedure for gastric cancer (GC), with three reconstruction methods available: Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y. In 2018, our team published a systematic review to provide guidance for clinical practice on the optimal reconstruction method after DG for GC. However, since then, new evidence from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has emerged, prompting us to conduct an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide the latest comparative estimates of the efficacy and safety of the three reconstruction methods after DG for GC.

Method

This systematic review and network meta-analysis update followed the PRISMA-P guidelines and will include a search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing the outcomes of Billroth I, Billroth II, or Roux-en-Y reconstruction after DG for patients with GC. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts based on predefined eligibility criteria, and two reviewers will assess the full texts of relevant studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis will evaluate various outcomes, including quality of life after surgery, anastomotic leakage within 30 days after surgery, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, major postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery, incidence and severity of bile reflux, and loss of body weight from baseline.

Ethics and dissemination

The review does not require ethical approval. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal, presentations at conferences, and various media outlets.

INPLASY registration number

INPLASY2021100060.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.CrossRefPubMed Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference Cai Z, Yin Y, Shen C, Wang J, Yin X, Chen Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness of preoperative, postoperative and perioperative treatments for resectable gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis of the literature from the past 20 years. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(3):563–74.CrossRefPubMed Cai Z, Yin Y, Shen C, Wang J, Yin X, Chen Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness of preoperative, postoperative and perioperative treatments for resectable gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis of the literature from the past 20 years. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(3):563–74.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC, Lordick F. Gastric cancer. Lancet. 2020;396(10251):635–48.CrossRefPubMed Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC, Lordick F. Gastric cancer. Lancet. 2020;396(10251):635–48.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Hu Y, Zaydfudim VM. Quality of life after curative resection for gastric cancer: survey metrics and implications of surgical technique. J Surg Res. 2020;251:168–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hu Y, Zaydfudim VM. Quality of life after curative resection for gastric cancer: survey metrics and implications of surgical technique. J Surg Res. 2020;251:168–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Hirao M, Takiguchi S, Imamura H, Yamamoto K, Kurokawa Y, Fujita J, et al. Comparison of Billroth I and Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: one-year postoperative effects assessed by a multi-institutional RCT. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1591–7.CrossRefPubMed Hirao M, Takiguchi S, Imamura H, Yamamoto K, Kurokawa Y, Fujita J, et al. Comparison of Billroth I and Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: one-year postoperative effects assessed by a multi-institutional RCT. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1591–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Nunobe S, Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10(3):167–72.CrossRefPubMed Nunobe S, Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Symptom evaluation of long-term postoperative outcomes after pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10(3):167–72.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hoya Y, Mitsumori N, Yanaga K. The advantages and disadvantages of a Roux-en-Y reconstruction after a distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Today. 2009;39(8):647.CrossRefPubMed Hoya Y, Mitsumori N, Yanaga K. The advantages and disadvantages of a Roux-en-Y reconstruction after a distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Today. 2009;39(8):647.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Choi CI, Baek DH, Lee SH, Hwang SH, Kim DH, Kim KH, et al. Comparison between Billroth-II with Braun and Roux-en-Y reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(6):1083–90.CrossRef Choi CI, Baek DH, Lee SH, Hwang SH, Kim DH, Kim KH, et al. Comparison between Billroth-II with Braun and Roux-en-Y reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(6):1083–90.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Shim JH, Oh SI, Yoo HM, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY. Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: comparison with Billorth II reconstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24(5):448–51.CrossRefPubMed Shim JH, Oh SI, Yoo HM, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY. Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy after totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: comparison with Billorth II reconstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24(5):448–51.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Shirbeigi L, Halavati N, Leila A, Aliasl J. Dietary and medicinal herbal recommendation for management of primary bile reflux gastritis in traditional Persian medicine. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(8):1166–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Shirbeigi L, Halavati N, Leila A, Aliasl J. Dietary and medicinal herbal recommendation for management of primary bile reflux gastritis in traditional Persian medicine. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(8):1166–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Nishizaki D, Ganeko R, Hoshino N, Hida K, Obama K, Furukawa TA, et al. Roux-en-Y versus Billroth-I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9(9):CD012998.PubMed Nishizaki D, Ganeko R, Hoshino N, Hida K, Obama K, Furukawa TA, et al. Roux-en-Y versus Billroth-I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9(9):CD012998.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Mon RA, Cullen JJ. Standard Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy vs. “uncut” Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy: a matched cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000;4(3):298–303.CrossRefPubMed Mon RA, Cullen JJ. Standard Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy vs. “uncut” Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy: a matched cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000;4(3):298–303.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Xiong J-J, Altaf K, Javed MA, Nunes QM, Huang W, Mai G, et al. Roux-en-Y versus Billroth I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol: WJG. 2013;19(7):1124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Xiong J-J, Altaf K, Javed MA, Nunes QM, Huang W, Mai G, et al. Roux-en-Y versus Billroth I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol: WJG. 2013;19(7):1124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Zong L, Chen P. Billroth I vs. Billroth II vs. Roux-en-Y following distal gastrectomy: a meta-analysis based on 15 studies. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(109):1413–24.CrossRefPubMed Zong L, Chen P. Billroth I vs. Billroth II vs. Roux-en-Y following distal gastrectomy: a meta-analysis based on 15 studies. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(109):1413–24.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Cai Z, Zhou Y, Wang C, Yin Y, Yin Y, Shen C, et al. Optimal reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(20):e10823.CrossRefPubMed Cai Z, Zhou Y, Wang C, Yin Y, Yin Y, Shen C, et al. Optimal reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(20):e10823.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Liu XF, Gao ZM, Wang RY, Wang PL, Li K, Gao S. Comparison of Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y reconstructions after distal gastrectomy according to functional recovery: a meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(17):7532–42.PubMed Liu XF, Gao ZM, Wang RY, Wang PL, Li K, Gao S. Comparison of Billroth I, Billroth II, and Roux-en-Y reconstructions after distal gastrectomy according to functional recovery: a meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(17):7532–42.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Ma Y, Li F, Zhou X, Wang B, Lu S, Wang W, et al. Four reconstruction methods after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(51):e18381.CrossRefPubMed Ma Y, Li F, Zhou X, Wang B, Lu S, Wang W, et al. Four reconstruction methods after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(51):e18381.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Min JS, Kim RB, Seo KW, Jeong SH. Comparison of the clinical outcomes of reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. J Gastric Cancer. 2022;22(2):83–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Min JS, Kim RB, Seo KW, Jeong SH. Comparison of the clinical outcomes of reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. J Gastric Cancer. 2022;22(2):83–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349.
21.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
22.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.CrossRefPubMed Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Duchaine CS, Aubé K, Gilbert-Ouimet M, Gralle APBP, Vezina M, Ndjaboue R, et al. Effect of psychosocial work factors on the risk of depression: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e033093.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duchaine CS, Aubé K, Gilbert-Ouimet M, Gralle APBP, Vezina M, Ndjaboue R, et al. Effect of psychosocial work factors on the risk of depression: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e033093.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(Suppl 1):29–31. Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(Suppl 1):29–31.
27.
go back to reference Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. MSOR connections. 2014. p. 1. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. MSOR connections. 2014. p. 1.
28.
go back to reference van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99.CrossRefPubMed van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Plummer M. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package v. 4–8. 2018. Plummer M. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package v. 4–8. 2018.
30.
go back to reference Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10(10):Ed000142. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10(10):Ed000142.
31.
go back to reference Balasubramanian H, Ananthan A, Rao S, Patole S. Odds ratio vs risk ratio in randomized controlled trials. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(4):359–67.CrossRefPubMed Balasubramanian H, Ananthan A, Rao S, Patole S. Odds ratio vs risk ratio in randomized controlled trials. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(4):359–67.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Rombach I, Knight R, Peckham N, Stokes JR, Cook JA. Current practice in analysing and reporting binary outcome data-a review of randomised controlled trial reports. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rombach I, Knight R, Peckham N, Stokes JR, Cook JA. Current practice in analysing and reporting binary outcome data-a review of randomised controlled trial reports. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71.CrossRefPubMed Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Cai Z, Liu C, Chang C, Shen C, Yin Y, Yin X, et al. Comparative safety and tolerability of approved PARP inhibitors in cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pharmacol Res. 2021;172:105808.CrossRefPubMed Cai Z, Liu C, Chang C, Shen C, Yin Y, Yin X, et al. Comparative safety and tolerability of approved PARP inhibitors in cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pharmacol Res. 2021;172:105808.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Lewis SR, Macey R, Stokes J, Cook JA, Eardley WG, Griffin XL. Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2(2):Cd013404.PubMed Lewis SR, Macey R, Stokes J, Cook JA, Eardley WG, Griffin XL. Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2(2):Cd013404.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7–8):932–44.CrossRefPubMed Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7–8):932–44.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, et al. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(4):e1003082.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, et al. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(4):e1003082.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
go back to reference Papakonstantinou T, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Egger M, Salanti G. CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(1):e1080.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Papakonstantinou T, Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Egger M, Salanti G. CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(1):e1080.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Optimal reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis update
Authors
Zhou Zhao
Hancong Li
Xiangcheng Pan
Chaoyong Shen
Mingchun Mu
Xiaonan Yin
Jing Liao
Zhaolun Cai
Bo Zhang
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02445-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Systematic Reviews 1/2024 Go to the issue