Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making

• Published in: Surgery Vol. 173; no. 4; pp. 957 - 967
• Main Authors: Hipp, Julian, Hillebrecht, Hans Christian, Kalkum, Eva, Klotz, Rosa, Kuvendjiska, Jasmina, Martini, Verena, Fichtner-Feigl, Stefan, Diener, Markus K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.04.2023
• Subjects: Clinical Decision-Making; Esophagogastric Junction; Gastrectomy - methods; Humans; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Retrospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms - surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0039-6060; 1532-7361
• DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.11.018

To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II–III) and gastric cancer. We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB–III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51–0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44–1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32–5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59–5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B12 levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37–78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction. Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.