Comparison of the prognosis of four different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the long-term prognosis and short-term postoperative complications of different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer (PGC).

METHODS

We searched for articles published in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and February 1, 2021. We screened out the literature comparing different surgical strategies. We then evaluated the long-term and short-term outcome of different surgical strategies using a network meta-analysis, which summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between different surgical strategies for 5-year overall survival (OS), anastomotic leakage, or weight loss after 1 year. Compared with total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TG-RY) and proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR), the proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (PG-EG) strategy significantly increased the incidence of reflux esophagitis; and the operation time and blood loss of the PG-EG strategy were significantly less than those of the other surgical strategies. The anastomotic stenosis rates of the PG-EG and proximal gastrectomy with jejunum interstitial (PG-JI) strategies were significantly higher than those of TG-RY and PG-DTR; the hemoglobin level after 1 year for the PG-DTR strategy was significantly higher than that of the TG-RY strategy.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive literature research found that different surgical strategies had no significant difference in the long-term survival of PGC, but the incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis after PG-DTR and TG-RY was significantly reduced.