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.
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.
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.
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.
Trans-Pacific Multicenter Collaborative Study of Minimally Invasive Proximal Versus Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Proximal vs. total gastrectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Defining Recovery After Gastrectomy: Insights from Longitudinally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: What is "Recovery"? Lessons from Patient-Reported Outcomes in Gastrectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Predictors of cough resolution following endoscopic minimally invasive treatment in patients with GERD and chronic cough: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
41023216What OpenQuestion holds
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.