Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis
Background Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear. Methods This study...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3356-3364 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3364 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 3356 |
| container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Yamamoto, Manabu Shimokawa, Mototsugu Ohta, Mitsuhiko Uehara, Hideo Sugiyama, Masahiko Nakashima, Yuichiro Nakanoko, Tomonori Ikebe, Masahiko Shin, Yuki Shiokawa, Keiichi Morita, Masaru Toh, Yasushi |
| description | Background
Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear.
Methods
This study examined 458 patients with AGC. The mortality, morbidity, and prognosis were compared by age, gender, T and N factors, and pathological stage in the LG and OG groups using propensity score matching analysis. For the final analysis, 151 pairs of patients were selected from at each group.
Results
The results showed that no significant difference in mortality and morbidity existed between the two groups. The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 70% and 62% in the LG and OG groups, respectively (
p
= 0.104). The 5-year RFS rates in patients with pathological stages I, II, and III who had undergone LG were 84%, 80%, and 55%, respectively, and 78%, 70%, and 45%, respectively, in those who had undergone OG (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2564136004</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2649147198</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-54fdb1426287855366996e90b3731becfbc57de37cce299ffa68b3137844b68a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EotvCC3BAlrhwCfi_E25oBQWpEhc4R47jbF0ldvA4VPsmPC5TthSJAyePPb_5ZjwfIS84e8MZs2-BMWVUwwRvWGu0aMQjsuNKYiB4-5jsWCdZI2ynzsg5wA1DvuP6KTmTSgnTWr0jP_d5WV2JkBPNE50dXjL4vEZPYSuHUI70NtZrmteQKFSXRlfGh9SUC3XjD5d8GOnBQS1Y513xMeXF0ZiooxDTYQ4YQ411q-Edvq3lTg9iPVJsVgJdXPXXCFKX3HyECM_Ik8nNEJ7fnxfk28cPX_efmqsvl5_3768aL62ujVbTOHD8jWhtq7U0putM6NggreRD8NPgtR2DtN4H0XXT5Ew7SC5tq9RgWicvyOuTLo70fQtQ-yWCD_PsUsgb9EIbxaXB1SH66h_0Jm8F50XK4GaV5V2LlDhRHhcJJUz9WuLiyrHnrL_zrT_51qNv_W_feoFFL--lt2EJ40PJH6MQkCcAMJVw9397_0f2F_2Epf8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2649147198</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Yamamoto, Manabu ; Shimokawa, Mototsugu ; Ohta, Mitsuhiko ; Uehara, Hideo ; Sugiyama, Masahiko ; Nakashima, Yuichiro ; Nakanoko, Tomonori ; Ikebe, Masahiko ; Shin, Yuki ; Shiokawa, Keiichi ; Morita, Masaru ; Toh, Yasushi</creator><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Manabu ; Shimokawa, Mototsugu ; Ohta, Mitsuhiko ; Uehara, Hideo ; Sugiyama, Masahiko ; Nakashima, Yuichiro ; Nakanoko, Tomonori ; Ikebe, Masahiko ; Shin, Yuki ; Shiokawa, Keiichi ; Morita, Masaru ; Toh, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear.
Methods
This study examined 458 patients with AGC. The mortality, morbidity, and prognosis were compared by age, gender, T and N factors, and pathological stage in the LG and OG groups using propensity score matching analysis. For the final analysis, 151 pairs of patients were selected from at each group.
Results
The results showed that no significant difference in mortality and morbidity existed between the two groups. The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 70% and 62% in the LG and OG groups, respectively (
p
= 0.104). The 5-year RFS rates in patients with pathological stages I, II, and III who had undergone LG were 84%, 80%, and 55%, respectively, and 78%, 70%, and 45%, respectively, in those who had undergone OG (
p
< 0.005). The 5-year RFS rates in nonelderly patients who underwent LG or OG were 75% and 68%, respectively, and 58% and 40%, respectively, in elderly patients who underwent LG or OG (
p
< 0.005).
Conclusion
The 5-year RFS rates in patients with AGC at each stage did not significantly differ between LG and OG. However, the benefits at 5-year RFS in patients who underwent LG compared with OG were larger in elderly patients than those in nonelderly patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34426875</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Aged ; Carcinoma - surgery ; Gastrectomy - methods ; Gastric cancer ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Medical prognosis ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Mortality ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery ; Proctology ; Propensity Score ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms - pathology ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3356-3364</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-54fdb1426287855366996e90b3731becfbc57de37cce299ffa68b3137844b68a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-54fdb1426287855366996e90b3731becfbc57de37cce299ffa68b3137844b68a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3985-5327</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34426875$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Manabu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimokawa, Mototsugu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohta, Mitsuhiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uehara, Hideo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugiyama, Masahiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakashima, Yuichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakanoko, Tomonori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikebe, Masahiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiokawa, Keiichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morita, Masaru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toh, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background
Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear.
Methods
This study examined 458 patients with AGC. The mortality, morbidity, and prognosis were compared by age, gender, T and N factors, and pathological stage in the LG and OG groups using propensity score matching analysis. For the final analysis, 151 pairs of patients were selected from at each group.
Results
The results showed that no significant difference in mortality and morbidity existed between the two groups. The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 70% and 62% in the LG and OG groups, respectively (
p
= 0.104). The 5-year RFS rates in patients with pathological stages I, II, and III who had undergone LG were 84%, 80%, and 55%, respectively, and 78%, 70%, and 45%, respectively, in those who had undergone OG (
p
< 0.005). The 5-year RFS rates in nonelderly patients who underwent LG or OG were 75% and 68%, respectively, and 58% and 40%, respectively, in elderly patients who underwent LG or OG (
p
< 0.005).
Conclusion
The 5-year RFS rates in patients with AGC at each stage did not significantly differ between LG and OG. However, the benefits at 5-year RFS in patients who underwent LG compared with OG were larger in elderly patients than those in nonelderly patients.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Carcinoma - surgery</subject><subject>Gastrectomy - methods</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Propensity Score</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EotvCC3BAlrhwCfi_E25oBQWpEhc4R47jbF0ldvA4VPsmPC5TthSJAyePPb_5ZjwfIS84e8MZs2-BMWVUwwRvWGu0aMQjsuNKYiB4-5jsWCdZI2ynzsg5wA1DvuP6KTmTSgnTWr0jP_d5WV2JkBPNE50dXjL4vEZPYSuHUI70NtZrmteQKFSXRlfGh9SUC3XjD5d8GOnBQS1Y513xMeXF0ZiooxDTYQ4YQ411q-Edvq3lTg9iPVJsVgJdXPXXCFKX3HyECM_Ik8nNEJ7fnxfk28cPX_efmqsvl5_3768aL62ujVbTOHD8jWhtq7U0putM6NggreRD8NPgtR2DtN4H0XXT5Ew7SC5tq9RgWicvyOuTLo70fQtQ-yWCD_PsUsgb9EIbxaXB1SH66h_0Jm8F50XK4GaV5V2LlDhRHhcJJUz9WuLiyrHnrL_zrT_51qNv_W_feoFFL--lt2EJ40PJH6MQkCcAMJVw9397_0f2F_2Epf8</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Yamamoto, Manabu</creator><creator>Shimokawa, Mototsugu</creator><creator>Ohta, Mitsuhiko</creator><creator>Uehara, Hideo</creator><creator>Sugiyama, Masahiko</creator><creator>Nakashima, Yuichiro</creator><creator>Nakanoko, Tomonori</creator><creator>Ikebe, Masahiko</creator><creator>Shin, Yuki</creator><creator>Shiokawa, Keiichi</creator><creator>Morita, Masaru</creator><creator>Toh, Yasushi</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3985-5327</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis</title><author>Yamamoto, Manabu ; Shimokawa, Mototsugu ; Ohta, Mitsuhiko ; Uehara, Hideo ; Sugiyama, Masahiko ; Nakashima, Yuichiro ; Nakanoko, Tomonori ; Ikebe, Masahiko ; Shin, Yuki ; Shiokawa, Keiichi ; Morita, Masaru ; Toh, Yasushi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-54fdb1426287855366996e90b3731becfbc57de37cce299ffa68b3137844b68a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Carcinoma - surgery</topic><topic>Gastrectomy - methods</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Propensity Score</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Manabu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimokawa, Mototsugu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohta, Mitsuhiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uehara, Hideo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugiyama, Masahiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakashima, Yuichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakanoko, Tomonori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikebe, Masahiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shin, Yuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiokawa, Keiichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morita, Masaru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toh, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yamamoto, Manabu</au><au>Shimokawa, Mototsugu</au><au>Ohta, Mitsuhiko</au><au>Uehara, Hideo</au><au>Sugiyama, Masahiko</au><au>Nakashima, Yuichiro</au><au>Nakanoko, Tomonori</au><au>Ikebe, Masahiko</au><au>Shin, Yuki</au><au>Shiokawa, Keiichi</au><au>Morita, Masaru</au><au>Toh, Yasushi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>3356</spage><epage>3364</epage><pages>3356-3364</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><abstract>Background
Compared with open standard gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) did not result in inferior disease-free survival for early-stage and locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, whether LG for AGC in elderly patients is more beneficial than OG is unclear.
Methods
This study examined 458 patients with AGC. The mortality, morbidity, and prognosis were compared by age, gender, T and N factors, and pathological stage in the LG and OG groups using propensity score matching analysis. For the final analysis, 151 pairs of patients were selected from at each group.
Results
The results showed that no significant difference in mortality and morbidity existed between the two groups. The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 70% and 62% in the LG and OG groups, respectively (
p
= 0.104). The 5-year RFS rates in patients with pathological stages I, II, and III who had undergone LG were 84%, 80%, and 55%, respectively, and 78%, 70%, and 45%, respectively, in those who had undergone OG (
p
< 0.005). The 5-year RFS rates in nonelderly patients who underwent LG or OG were 75% and 68%, respectively, and 58% and 40%, respectively, in elderly patients who underwent LG or OG (
p
< 0.005).
Conclusion
The 5-year RFS rates in patients with AGC at each stage did not significantly differ between LG and OG. However, the benefits at 5-year RFS in patients who underwent LG compared with OG were larger in elderly patients than those in nonelderly patients.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>34426875</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3985-5327</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
| ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2022-05, Vol.36 (5), p.3356-3364 |
| issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2564136004 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Surgery Aged Carcinoma - surgery Gastrectomy - methods Gastric cancer Gastroenterology Gastrointestinal surgery Gynecology Hepatology Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - methods Medical prognosis Medicine Medicine & Public Health Mortality Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - surgery Proctology Propensity Score Retrospective Studies Stomach Neoplasms - pathology Surgery Treatment Outcome |
| title | Comparison of laparoscopic surgery with open standard surgery for advanced gastric carcinoma in a single institute: a propensity score matching analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T08%3A29%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20laparoscopic%20surgery%20with%20open%20standard%20surgery%20for%20advanced%20gastric%20carcinoma%20in%20a%20single%20institute:%20a%20propensity%20score%20matching%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Yamamoto,%20Manabu&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=3356&rft.epage=3364&rft.pages=3356-3364&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-021-08652-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2649147198%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2649147198&rft_id=info:pmid/34426875&rfr_iscdi=true |