SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Surgical Oncology
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1632011
This article is part of the Research TopicSurgical Management and Outcomes for Gastric CancerView all 4 articles
Proximal vs. Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity Score-Matched Studies
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of General Surgery, Qingdao Central Hospital, University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, China
- 2Department of Oncology, Qingdao Central Hospital, University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, China
- 3Department of General Practice, Qingdao Central Hospital, University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, China
- 4Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The optimal surgical approach for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer (LAPGC) remains controversial. While total gastrectomy (TG) is widely accepted, proximal gastrectomy (PG) is increasingly considered to preserve function. This study represents the first meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of PG versus TG for LAPGC using data from propensity score-matched (PSM) studies, addressing a critical gap in surgical decision-making.Methods A comprehensive search of various electronic databases was conducted. Studies comparing PG and TG in LAPGC with PSM methodology were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included surgical metrics and postoperative complications.Results A total of 265 articles were screened, and five retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 412 patients after PSM. Surgical approaches (OR 1.03, P=0.896), positive surgical margins (OR 2.83, P=0.08), and adjuvant chemotherapy rates (OR 1.07, P=0.19) were similar between the PG and TG groups. PG resulted in significantly shorter operative times (MD 25.7, P<0.001) but higher blood loss (MD -21.65, P=0.02) and fewer lymph nodes harvested (MD 6.23, P<0.001). Furthermore, the number of metastatic lymph nodes was similar between the two groups (MD 0.62, P=0.07), with the exception of lymph node stations 5 and 6, where the metastatic rates in the TG group were 0.82% and 1.6% (P=0.645), respectively. Postoperative complications were lower in the PG group, but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 1.24, P=0.289). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PG group (MD 0.81, P=0.001). No significant differences in the 5-year OS or RFS were found (HR 0.99, P=0.48 for OS; HR 0.83, P=0.87 for RFS). Sensitivity and publication bias analyses supported the robustness and consistency of the results.For selected patients with LAPGC, PG offers similar curative potential and oncological efficacy as TG, making it a safe option.
Keywords: Proximal gastric cancer, Locally advanced gastric cancer, Proximal gastrectomy, Total gastrectomy, Propensity score matching, meta analysis
Received: 20 May 2025; Accepted: 01 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Liu, Li, Liang, Tian and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Lin Zhang, Department of General Surgery, Qingdao Central Hospital, University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.