Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023216›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

Transpacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal gastrectomy vs. minimally invasive total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers: 3-month follow-up results.

Naruhiko Ikoma, Travis Grotz, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Hyoung-Il Kim, Satoru Matsuda, Jun Okui, Koichi Tomita, Yuki Hirata, Atsushi Nakao, Loretta A Williams and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05205343 (Trans-Pacific Multicenter Collaborative Study of Minimally Invasive Proximal Versus Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT05205343 recruitingnot on this map

Trans-Pacific Multicenter Collaborative Study of Minimally Invasive Proximal Versus Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers

TypeobservationalSponsorM.D. Anderson Cancer CenterRan2022 to 2028Enrolled20ConditionsGastrostomy, Gastric, GastroEsophageal CancerArmsStandard of Care, Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Simple clinical parameters to identify sarcopenia 1 year after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

17 authors.

Naruhiko IkomaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9825-9234
Travis GrotzMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Hirofumi KawakuboDepartment of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hyoung-Il KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. cairus@naver.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-4523
Satoru MatsudaDepartment of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jun OkuiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Koichi TomitaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Yuki HirataDepartment of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi NakaoDepartment of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Loretta A WilliamsDepartment of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Xin Shelley WangDepartment of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Xuemei WangDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Paul F MansfieldDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Woo-Jin HyungDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Brian D BadgwellDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Vivian E StrongDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Yuko KitagawaDepartment of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Project Periwinkle Clinical Research Grant Clinical Research Grant 2021Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons 2021Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Clinical Research Grantthe Korean Surgical Society and Korea Health Industry Development Institute HI22C0767
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal gastrectomy (TG) remains the standard surgical approach for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers. However, experts increasingly perform proximal gastrectomy (PG) with anti-reflux reconstruction. The benefits of minimally invasive PG (MIPG) over minimally invasive TG (MITG), particularly regarding postoperative quality of life (QoL), remain unclear.

methodsWe conducted a transpacific, multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective cohort study to compare symptom burden outcomes (symptom occurrence, symptom severity, and daily functioning) between MIPG and MITG in patients with P/GEJ cancers. Symptom burden data was collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-GI +).

resultsAmong 71 patients with P/GEJ cancers enrolled from 2022 through 2024, 64 underwent either MITG (n = 26, 41%) or MIPG (n = 38, 59%). Thirty-nine (61%) patients were treated at Asian centers, and 25 (39%) patients were treated at U.S. CENTERS: Compared to the MIPG patients, the MITG patients had a larger mean tumor size (5.7 vs. 2.3 cm) and a higher prevalence of signet ring cell histology (50 vs. 18%). Operation times were comparable between the MITG and MIPG groups (median: 288.5 vs. 277.0 min), as were the rates of postoperative complications (19 vs. 24%), anastomotic leaks (0 vs. 3%), 90-day mortality (0 vs. 3%), and positive proximal margins (8 vs. 0%, all p > 0.05). QoL data (MDASI-GI +) were collected from at least 95% of patients at all time points. Key metrics related to QoL-appetite, reflux, total symptom burden, and functional interference-did not differ significantly between groups at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. A linear mixed-effects model showed that body-weight trajectories over time did not differ significantly between the MITG and MIPG groups, and there was no significant difference between their highest weight loss percentages within the first 3 months postoperatively. At postoperative month 3, hemoglobin, albumin, vitamin B12, and ghrelin levels were comparable between the groups.

conclusionMIPG and MITG demonstrated equivalent short-term safety, and MIPG did not confer measurable QoL advantages, including in appetite, within 3 months after surgery. Longer-term follow-up is ongoing to evaluate potential delayed advantages. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: On January 11, 2022, this trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Reporting Program under the registration number NCI-2022-00267 and with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagogastric JunctionGastrectomyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomePatient-reported outcomesProximal gastrectomyQuality of lifeRobotic gastrectomyTotal gastrectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.