AimTo compare the long-term nutritional status, reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis, between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG).MethodsPatients who underwent PG or TG in this single institution between January 2014 and December 2016 were included in this study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) by the demographic and pathological characteristics was performed to compare the long-term outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint was long-term nutritional status, and the second endpoints were reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis. Long-term nutritional status was valued by percentage of body mass index (%BMI), body weight, and blood test including total protein, prealbumin, hemoglobin and total leukocytes.ResultsTotally 460 patients received PG or TG in our institution for the treatment between January 2014 and December 2016 and according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria 226 cases were included in this study finally. There was no significant difference as to nutritional status in the end of first 5 years after PG or TG. While reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis were significantly higher in the PG group than in the TG group (54.4% versus 26.8%, p < 0.001; 14.9% versus 4.5%, p=0.015; respectively). Overall survival rates were similar between the two groups after PSM (5-year survival rates: 65.4% versus 61.5% in the PG and TG groups, respectively; p = 0.54). The rate of carcinoma of remnant stomach after PG was 3.5% in this group of patients.ConclusionsTG should be more aggressively recommended for the similar nutritional status, significantly lower reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis, and free of carcinoma of remnant stomach compared with PG.

Purpose About 15%—40% of gastric cancer patients have peritoneal metastasis, which leads to poor prognosis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is considered to be an effective treatment for these patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of HIPEC in patients with gastric cancer diagnosed from laboratory tests. Methods The clinical and pathological data of 63 patients with gastric cancer who underwent HIPEC in 2017–2021 were prospectively recorded. Fifty-five patients underwent cytoreductive surgery + HIPEC, and eight patients received HIPEC alone. The factors associated with HIPEC safety and efficacy were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results The average patient age was 54.84 years and 68.3% of patients were male. Moreover, 79.4% of patients had a peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) score of ≤ 7 and 61.9% had a completeness of cytoreduction score of 0. Because of peritoneal metastasis, 29 patients (46.03%) were classified as stage IV. Laboratory tests showed no differences in pre-HIPEC blood test results compared to post-HIPEC results after removing the effects of surgery. HIPEC treatment did not cause obvious liver or kidney damage. Serum calcium levels decreased significantly after HIPEC ( P = 0.0018). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score correlated with the patient’s physical function and improved after HIPEC ( P = 0.0045). In coagulation tests, FDP ( P < 0.0001) and D-dimer ( P < 0.0001) levels increased significantly and CA242 ( P = 0.0159), CA724 ( P < 0.0001), and CEA ( P < 0.0014) levels decreased significantly after HIPEC. Completeness of cytoreduction score was an independent prognostic factor. HIPEC did not show a survival benefit in patients with gastric cancer ( P = 0.5505). Conclusion HIPEC is a safe treatment for patients with gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis based on the laboratory tests. However, the efficacy of this treatment on gastric-derived peritoneal metastases requires further confirmation. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01795-6.

We aimed to determine the pattern of delay and its effect on the short-term outcomes of total gastrectomy before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Overlaid line graphs were used to visualize the dynamic changes in the severity of the pandemic, number of gastric cancer patients, and waiting time for a total gastrectomy. We observed a slightly longer waiting time during the pandemic (median: 28.00 days, interquartile range: 22.00–34.75) than before the pandemic (median: 25.00 days, interquartile range: 18.00–34.00; p = 0.0071). Moreover, we study the effect of delayed surgery (waiting time &gt; 30 days) on short-term outcomes using postoperative complications, extreme value of laboratory results, and postoperative stay. In patients who had longer waiting times, we did not observe worse short-term complication rates (grade II–IV: 15% vs. 19%, p = 0.27; grade III–IV: 7.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.51, the short waiting group vs. the prolonged waiting group) or a higher risk of a longer POD (univariable: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80–1.49, p = 0.59; multivariable: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.78–1.55, p = 0.59). Patients in the short waiting group, rather than in the delayed surgery group, had an increased risk of bleeding in analyses of laboratory results (plasma prothrombin activity, hemoglobin, and hematocrit). A slightly prolonged preoperative waiting time during COVID-19 pandemic might not influence the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent total gastrectomy.