Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Gastrectomy | Study protocol

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

Authors: Naruhiko Ikoma, Travis Grotz, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Hyoung-Il Kim, Satoru Matsuda, Yuki Hirata, Atsushi Nakao, Loretta A. Williams, Xin Shelley Wang, Tito Mendoza, Xuemei Wang, Brian D. Badgwell, Paul F. Mansfield, Woo-Jin Hyung, Vivian E. Strong, Yuko Kitagawa

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

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 B12 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.
Literature
6.
go back to reference Rosa F, Quero G, Fiorillo C, et al. Total vs proximal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the upper third of the stomach: a propensity-score-matched analysis of a multicenter western experience (On behalf of the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer-GIRCG). Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(5):845–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-018-0804-3.CrossRefPubMed Rosa F, Quero G, Fiorillo C, et al. Total vs proximal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the upper third of the stomach: a propensity-score-matched analysis of a multicenter western experience (On behalf of the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer-GIRCG). Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(5):845–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10120-018-0804-3.CrossRefPubMed
16.
21.
go back to reference Kunisaki C, Yoshida K, Yoshida M, et al. Effects of proximal gastrectomy and various clinical factors on postoperative quality of life for upper-third gastric cancer assessed using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45): a PGSAS NEXT study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:3899–909. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-11136-1.CrossRefPubMed Kunisaki C, Yoshida K, Yoshida M, et al. Effects of proximal gastrectomy and various clinical factors on postoperative quality of life for upper-third gastric cancer assessed using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45): a PGSAS NEXT study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:3899–909. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1245/​s10434-021-11136-1.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Nakada K, Ikeda M, Takahashi M, et al. Characteristics and clinical relevance of postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS)-45: newly developed integrated questionnaires for assessment of living status and quality of life in postgastrectomy patients. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18(1):147–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-014-0344-4.CrossRefPubMed Nakada K, Ikeda M, Takahashi M, et al. Characteristics and clinical relevance of postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS)-45: newly developed integrated questionnaires for assessment of living status and quality of life in postgastrectomy patients. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18(1):147–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10120-014-0344-4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Trans-pacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers
Authors
Naruhiko Ikoma
Travis Grotz
Hirofumi Kawakubo
Hyoung-Il Kim
Satoru Matsuda
Yuki Hirata
Atsushi Nakao
Loretta A. Williams
Xin Shelley Wang
Tito Mendoza
Xuemei Wang
Brian D. Badgwell
Paul F. Mansfield
Woo-Jin Hyung
Vivian E. Strong
Yuko Kitagawa
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02163-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Surgery 1/2023 Go to the issue