Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39822177›Full record

ReviewJournal of gastric cancer2025

Updated Review of Proximal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer or Cancer of the Gastroesophageal Junction.

Tomoyuki Irino, Manabu Ohashi, Masaru Hayami, Rie Makuuchi, Motonari Ri, Takeshi Sano, Toshiharu Yamaguchi, Souya Nunobe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of gastric cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of prophylactic drain placement on intra-abdominal infections after gastrectomy: nationwide inpatient database study in Japan.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tomoyuki IrinoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2056-0721
Manabu OhashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7417-3682
Masaru HayamiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3460-3785
Rie MakuuchiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7186-6181
Motonari RiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-8103-9721
Takeshi SanoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshiharu YamaguchiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.
Souya NunobeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital Ariake, Tokyo, Japan. souya.nunobe@jfcr.or.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-3012-5632

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proximal gastrectomy (PG) has reemerged as a viable surgical option for managing proximal gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancer, particularly for early-stage tumors, offering potential advantages over total gastrectomy (TG). This review examines the evolution of PG, emphasizing surgical techniques and outcomes. Although PG was initially abandoned due to postoperative complications such as reflux esophagitis, advances in reconstruction methods, such as the double-flap technique and double-tract reconstruction, have significantly improved patient quality of life and reduced complications. Modern techniques focus on preserving gastric function, enhancing postoperative nutritional status, and minimizing morbidity, especially compared to TG. However, debates persist regarding the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy, oncological safety, and the risk of metachronous gastric cancer after surgery. Various international guidelines support PG for specific cases, particularly where lymph node involvement is limited, and functional preservation is prioritized. Despite promising survival and quality-of-life outcomes, certain risks, such as anastomotic stenosis and metachronous cancer, remain. The role of PG in treating cancer of the gastroesophageal junction continues to be investigated, with ongoing studies further clarifying its effectiveness. The evolving techniques and increased focus on patient-centered outcomes suggest a renewed role of PG in the surgical management of gastric cancer.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagogastric JunctionGastrectomyStomach NeoplasmsHumansLymph Node ExcisionPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeGastrectomyGastric cancerQuality of lifeTechniques

Identifiers

PMID39822177
PMCPMC11739649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.