Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer : a propensity-score matched analysis
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature..
BACKGROUND: Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:35 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Surgical endoscopy - 35(2021), 12 vom: 23. Dez., Seite 7082-7093 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Hikage, Makoto [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Distal gastrectomy |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 05.01.2022 Date Revised 05.01.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s00464-020-08224-w |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM323120482 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM323120482 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225183507.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00464-020-08224-w |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1077.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM323120482 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33755787 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hikage, Makoto |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer |b a propensity-score matched analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 05.01.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 05.01.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Phase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients | ||
| 520 | |a PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: We found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Distal gastrectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Efficacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Elderly patients | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gastric cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Minimally invasive gastrectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Propensity-score matched analysis | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fujiya, Keiichi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kamiya, Satoshi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tanizawa, Yutaka |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bando, Etsuro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Terashima, Masanori |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Surgical endoscopy |d 1996 |g 35(2021), 12 vom: 23. Dez., Seite 7082-7093 |w (DE-627)NLM012660159 |x 1432-2218 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:35 |g year:2021 |g number:12 |g day:23 |g month:12 |g pages:7082-7093 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08224-w |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 35 |j 2021 |e 12 |b 23 |c 12 |h 7082-7093 | ||