Journal of Gastric Cancer

  • 제25권3호
  • /
  • Pages.466-477
  • /
  • 2025
  • /
  • 2093-582X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-5641(eISSN)
대한위암학회 (The Korean Gastric Cancer Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Success Rate and Factors Associated With Surveillance Endoscopy After Proximal Gastrectomy With Double-Tract Reconstruction: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

  • Ji Won Seo (Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ki Bum Park (Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 투고 : 2025.01.20
  • 심사 : 2025.05.14
  • 발행 : 2025.07.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the rate of adequate observation of the remnant stomach after proximal gastrectomy (PG) with double-tract reconstruction (DTR). Materials and Methods: Data from patients who underwent PG with DTR for gastric cancer at 6 institutions in South Korea were included. The clinicopathological and serial endoscopic data were retrospectively analyzed. Successful surveillance endoscopy was defined as photographic documentation of the pyloric antrum. Factors associated with successful endoscopy were analyzed using a mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results: In total, 634 surveillance endoscopies were performed in 160 patients after they underwent PG with DTR. The median time from surgery to endoscopy was 17.5 months (range, 0-137 months). The overall success rate of endoscopy was 75.6%. The mean total procedure time for successful endoscopies was 439.4±336.0 seconds, compared with 373.7±326.0 seconds for failed examinations (P=0.033). Although 31.9% of the patients experienced failure during their first endoscopy, all but 3 patients achieved at least one successful endoscopy by the fourth session. Factors associated with successful endoscopy included longer procedure time (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.72), endoscopy performed by an endoscopist without prior PG experience (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.36), and a longer duration after surgery (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.72). Conclusions: Understanding the anatomical changes after PG with DTR is essential for successful surveillance endoscopy. In addition, the failure rates across all serial endoscopies are very low. Therefore, clinicians should ensure sufficient procedure time during endoscopy, regardless of the outcomes of previous examinations.

키워드

과제정보

The statistical analysis was conducted under the supervision of Professor Yong Gyu Park (ygpark@catholic.ac.kr) from the Department of Biostatistics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, through the statistical consultation services provided by the Clinical Research Institute at St. Vincent's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea. We thank the following individuals for their assistance with the Institutional Review Board process: So Jung Kim (Seoul St. Mary's Hospital), Yoon Ju Jung (Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital), Hayemin Lee (Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital), Eun Young Kim (Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital), and Dong Jin Kim (Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital). Language editing services for this manuscript were provided by TextCheck.

참고문헌

  1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:229-263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834
  2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Lee ES. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2018. Cancer Res Treat 2018;50:317-323. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.142
  3. Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association. Korean Gastric Cancer Associationled nationwide survey on surgically treated gastric cancers in 2019. J Gastric Cancer 2021;21:221-235.  https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2021.21.e27
  4. Kim TH, Kim IH, Kang SJ, Choi M, Kim BH, Eom BW, et al. Korean practice guidelines for gastric cancer 2022: an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach. J Gastric Cancer 2023;23:3-106. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2023.23.e11
  5. Park DJ, Han SU, Hyung WJ, Hwang SH, Hur H, Yang HK, et al. Effect of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction vs total gastrectomy on hemoglobin level and vitamin B12 supplementation in upper-third early gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6:e2256004. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.56004
  6. Hwang SH, Park DJ, Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Hur H, Yang HK, et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction versus laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper early gastric cancer: a KLASS 05 randomized clinical trial. J Gastric Cancer 2022;22:94-106. https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e8
  7. Kim DJ, Kim W. Laparoscopy-assisted proximal gastrectomy with double tract anastomosis is beneficial for vitamin B12 and iron absorption. Anticancer Res 2016;36:4753-4758. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11031
  8. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, et al. The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21388
  9. Choi SJ, Khan MA, Choi HS, Choo J, Lee JM, Kwon S, et al. Development of artificial intelligence system for quality control of photo documentation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Surg Endosc 2022;36:57-65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08236-6
  10. Rey JF, Lambert R; ESGE Quality Assurance Committee. ESGE recommendations for quality control in gastrointestinal endoscopy: guidelines for image documentation in upper and lower GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2001;33:901-903. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-42537
  11. Kubo M, Sasako M, Gotoda T, Ono H, Fujishiro M, Saito D, et al. Endoscopic evaluation of the remnant stomach after gastrectomy: proposal for a new classification. Gastric Cancer 2002;5:83-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101200200014
  12. Iddrisu AK, Besing Karadaar I, Gurah Junior J, Ansu B, Ernest DA. Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of blood pressure among Ghanaians and associated risk factors. Sci Rep 2023;13:7728. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34478-0
  13. Kim HH, Han SU, Kim MC, Kim W, Lee HJ, Ryu SW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy on long-term survival among patients with stage I gastric cancer: the KLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:506-513. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6727
  14. Han ES, Seo HS, Kim JH, Lee HH. Surveillance endoscopy guidelines for postgastrectomy patients based on risk of developing remnant gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:4216-4224. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08517-3
  15. Park YE, Kim SW. Clinicopathologic features of remnant gastric cancer after curative distal gastrectomy according to previous reconstruction method: a retrospective cohort study. World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1740-3
  16. Iwata Y, Ito S, Misawa K, Ito Y, Komori K, Abe T, et al. Incidence and treatment of metachronous gastric cancer after proximal gastrectomy. Surg Today 2018;48:552-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-018-1632-0
  17. Kumagai K, Lee SW, Ohira M, Aizawa M, Kamiya S, Takahata T, et al. Time interval after various types of gastrectomy until metachronous multiple gastric cancer: analysis of data from a nationwide Japanese survey. Mol Clin Oncol 2022;16:54. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2487
  18. Ishizu K, Hayashi T, Ogawa R, Nishino M, Sakon R, Wada T, et al. Characteristics of metachronous remnant gastric cancer after proximal gastrectomy: a retrospective analysis. J Gastric Cancer 2024;24:280-290.  https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2024.24.e21
  19. Ishida M, Kuroda S, Choda Y, Otsuka S, Ueyama S, Tanaka N, et al. Incidence of metachronous remnant gastric cancer after proximal gastrectomy with the double-flap technique (rD-FLAP-rGC study): a multicenter, retrospective study. Ann Surg Oncol 2023;30:2307-2316. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12932-z
  20. Nagula S, Parasa S, Laine L, Shah SC. AGA clinical practice update on high-quality upper endoscopy: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;22:933-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.034
  21. Teh JL, Tan JR, Lau LJF, Saxena N, Salim A, Tay A, et al. Longer examination time improves detection of gastric cancer during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:480-487.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.059
  22. Park JM, Huo SM, Lee HH, Lee BI, Song HJ, Choi MG. Longer observation time increases proportion of neoplasms detected by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017;153:460-469.e1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.009
  23. Jung Y, Lee SH. How do I overcome difficulties in insertion? Clin Endosc 2012;45:278-281. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.3.278
  24. Ghobrial S, Ott J, Parry JP. An overview of postoperative intraabdominal adhesions and their role on female infertility: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2023;12:2263. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062263
  25. Zinther NB, Zeuten A, Marinovskij E, Haislund M, Friis-Andersen H. Detection of abdominal wall adhesions using visceral slide. Surg Endosc 2010;24:3161-3166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1110-2
  26. Gawron AJ, Veerappan A, Keswani RN. High success rate of repeat colonoscopy with standard endoscopes in patients referred for prior incomplete colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2014;14:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-14-56