Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06929949

The Effect of Different Digestive Tract Reconstruction Methods on Postoperative Quality of Life After Proximal Gastrectomy

Gastric cancer ranks as the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. In China, its incidence and mortality rank third among all cancers. While the global incidence of gastric cancer is declining, proximal gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are on the rise. Due to the unique characteristics of AEG, there is no standardized treatment consensus, making the selection of an optimal surgical approach and reconstruction method crucial for improving patient outcomes.

For early-stage proximal gastric cancer and AEG, total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) are common surgical options. PG, increasingly favored for its function-preserving benefits, has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to TG. While TG effectively removes lymph nodes and reduces reflux risk, it leads to permanent loss of gastric function and nutritional deficiencies. PG better preserves gastrointestinal function but is limited by the risk of reflux esophagitis, highlighting the need for improved reconstruction techniques.

Several reconstruction methods exist after PG, including esophagogastric anastomosis, jejunal interposition, double-tract reconstruction (DTR), double-flap technique (DFT), and tubular gastric anastomosis, each with varying efficacy in preventing reflux. Studies suggest that DTR reduces reflux and improves quality of life compared to esophagogastric anastomosis, while DFT, first introduced in 1998, has gained popularity for its advantages in maintaining nutrition and minimizing reflux. Additionally, tubular gastric anastomosis, which constructs a narrow gastric tube to facilitate tension-free anastomosis, has shown potential benefits for AEG patients.

Most existing studies on laparoscopic or robot-assisted reconstruction techniques for proximal gastric cancer are retrospective, lacking high-quality prospective evidence. Furthermore, comparative data on their anti-reflux efficacy and postoperative quality of life remains l

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year–75 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

First Hospital of Jilin University

Changchun, Jilin, 130012, China

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Quan Director, clinical professor, M.D.

CONTACT

[email protected]

+86 15843073207

About this study

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignant tumor worldwide and ranks fourth in cancer-related mortality. In China, the incidence and mortality rate of gastric cancer rank third among all malignancies. While the global incidence of gastric cancer has been steadily declining, the incidence of proximal gastric cancer has been rising. Additionally, the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing annually, showing an upward trend worldwide. Due to its unique anatomical location and significant tumor biological heterogeneity, there is no standardized consensus on the optimal treatment for AEG. Therefore, selecting an appropriate surgical resection and reconstruction approach remains crucial for improving the prognosis of patients with proximal gastric cancer and AEG.

For early-stage proximal gastric cancer and AEG, either total gastrectomy (TG) or proximal gastrectomy (PG) can be performed. With the advancement of function-preserving surgical concepts, PG has been increasingly recognized as a viable option. The Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG1401) trial demonstrated that laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage proximal gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). However, patients undergoing TG often experience long-term postoperative quality-of-life concerns. Although TG can effectively remove lymph nodes and reduce the risk of gastroesophageal reflux, it results in the permanent loss of gastric storage, mechanical grinding, and secretory functions, as well as reduced feasibility of postoperative endoscopic examination. TG patients may also suffer from nutritional deficiencies, including vitamin B12 deficiency, iron deficiency, weight loss, anemia, diarrhea, and dumping syndrome. In contrast, PG offers advantages in preserving gastrointestinal function and nutritional status. However, its widespread adoption is limited by the risk of reflux esophagitis. Thus, selecting an optimal reconstruct

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age from over 18 to under 75 years.
  • Preoperative gastroscopic pathological biopsy was performed, and histologically confirmed as carcinoma (papillary adenocarcinoma, tubular adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, mixed adenocarcinoma, etc.) or adenoma.
  • Diagnosed with upper gastric cancer (T1N0M0, T1N1M0, or T2N0M0) or esophagogastric junction cancer with a diameter ≤4 cm based on the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system, as confirmed by CT, MRI, endoscopic ultrasound, and pathology.
  • Undergoing proximal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is expected to achieve curative resection, with the remaining gastric volume required to be at least half of the pre-resection volume.
  • Performance status of 0 or 1 on ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) scale.
  • ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) class I to III.
  • The patient has adequate organ function and is capable of tolerating surgery.
  • Written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients who have received preoperative radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.
  • Presence of multiple malignant tumors in the stomach.
  • History of upper abdominal surgery, except for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
  • History of gastric surgery, except for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for gastric cancer.
  • Evidence of distant metastasis diagnosed by thoracoabdominal CT/MRI or PET-CT.
  • Pregnant or lactating women.
  • History of uncontrolled epilepsy, central nervous system disorders, or psychiatric illness.
  • Patients with limb disabilities or motor function impairment.
  • History of other malignant diseases within the past five years, except for cured skin cancer and cervical carcinoma in situ.
  • Clinically severe (i.e., active) heart disease, such as symptomatic coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or higher congestive heart failure, severe arrhythmia requiring medical intervention, or myocardial infarction within the past six months.
  • History of stroke or cerebral hemorrhage within the past six months.
  • Severe, uncontrolled recurrent infections or other serious uncontrolled comorbidities.
  • Pulmonary function test showing FEV1 < 50% of the predicted value.
  • Patients requiring emergency surgery due to tumor-related complications (e.g., bleeding, perforation, or obstruction).

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of reflux esophagitis

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    The proportion of patients with reflux esophagitis diagnosed by digestive endoscopy (LA classification), barium meal (barium meal) and (GerdQ scale).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incidence of Postoperative complications

    Time frame: Within 30 days after surgery

    The total number of patients who underwent surgical treatment was used as the denominator, and the number of patients with any postoperative complication was used as the numerator to calculate the incidence percentage.

  2. Postoperative mortality

    Time frame: Within 30 days after surgery

    The total number of patients who underwent surgical treatment was used as the denominator, and the number of patients who died after surgery was used as the numerator to calculate the incidence percentage.

  3. Body weight change

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Body weight will be monitored during follow-up after surgery.

  4. Long-term postoperative quality of life

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-STO22 questionnaires.

  5. Long-term postoperative quality of life

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires.

  6. Postoperative albumin

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  7. Postoperative prealbumin

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  8. Postoperative total protein

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  9. Postoperative hemoglobin

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  10. Vitamin D

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  11. Folic acid

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  12. Vitamin B12

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  13. Ferritin

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    Hematological examination

  14. Sarcopenia

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    CT scan was performed to assess the L3 skeletal muscle index (LSMI).

  15. Hp Infection

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 2 years postoperatively.

    C13/14 examination by blowing or by endoscopic biopsy.

  16. 3-years Relapse free survival rate

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 3 years postoperatively.

  17. 3-years overall survival rate

    Time frame: Follow-up evaluations are performed up to 3 years postoperatively.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Quan Wang, Professor

CONTACT

[email protected]

+86 15843073207

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The First Hospital of Jilin University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A Single-center, Prospective, Observational Cohort Study on the Effect of Different Digestive Tract Reconstruction Methods on Postoperative Quality of Life After Proximal Gastrectomy

Acronym: STARS-GC10

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2028
Study completion
2030
First posted
Apr 16, 2025
Registry last updated
Apr 16, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.