본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Is Proximal Gastrectomy Oncologically Justifiable for Advanced Siewert II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction?

1/5 보강
Journal of gastric cancer 2025 Vol.25(4) p. 541-555
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
443 patients with pT2-4NanyM0 Siewert II/III AEG who underwent PG (n=192) or TG (n=251).
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
PG (n=192) or TG (n=251)
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
Accurate preoperative staging and intraoperative reassessment are essential for safe PG selection. [TRIAL REGISTRATION] Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2500102562.

Wang H, Ye Z, Lu Y, Hu H, Jiang Y, Li W, Shao X, Tian Y

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[PURPOSE] The oncological safety of proximal gastrectomy (PG) for advanced Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) remains controversial.

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • 표본수 (n) 192
  • p-value P<0.001
  • p-value P=0.023

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Wang H, Ye Z, et al. (2025). Is Proximal Gastrectomy Oncologically Justifiable for Advanced Siewert II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction?. Journal of gastric cancer, 25(4), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2025.25.e40
MLA Wang H, et al.. "Is Proximal Gastrectomy Oncologically Justifiable for Advanced Siewert II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction?." Journal of gastric cancer, vol. 25, no. 4, 2025, pp. 541-555.
PMID 41093774

Abstract

[PURPOSE] The oncological safety of proximal gastrectomy (PG) for advanced Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) remains controversial. We compared the long-term oncological outcomes of PG and total gastrectomy (TG) to refine the indications for PG.

[MATERIALS AND METHODS] This dual-center retrospective study included 443 patients with pT2-4NanyM0 Siewert II/III AEG who underwent PG (n=192) or TG (n=251). Propensity score matching yielded 149 matched pairs. Perioperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and recurrence patterns were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess risk factors for perigastric lymph nodes (PLN) recurrence after PG and key distal lymph nodes (KDLN) metastases after TG. The therapeutic index (TI) of KDLN metastases was calculated.

[RESULTS] Although survival rates were lower after PG, no significant differences were observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR],1.39; P=0.109) or RFS (HR, 1.30; P=0.212). PG was associated with more local recurrences (24.12% vs. 8.7%; P<0.001), especially PLN metastases (13.4% vs. 5.4%; P=0.023). In subgroup analyses, PG was associated with worse OS in pT4 patients (HR, 2.17; P=0.006) and worse RFS in pN3 patients (HR, 2.37; P=0.011). In patients who underwent TG, tumor size >6 cm (OR, 3.72) and pT4 (OR, 13.9) predicted KDLN metastasis. Patients with KDLN metastases had significantly worse OS (HR, 2.51; P<0.001).

[CONCLUSIONS] TG is more suitable for patients with advanced Siewert II/III AEG with pT4, tumors >6 cm, or those with a high predicted risk of KDLN metastases. Accurate preoperative staging and intraoperative reassessment are essential for safe PG selection.

[TRIAL REGISTRATION] Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2500102562.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Gastrectomy; Esophagogastric Junction; Male; Female; Adenocarcinoma; Stomach Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Middle Aged; Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Survival Rate; Lymphatic Metastasis; Adult

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)