Survival outcome and prognostic factors of remnant gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Background: Studies on survival and prognostic factors in individuals with remnant gastric cancer (RGC) after gastric cancer (GC) are rare. It is debatable whether prognosis of RGC after GC is worse than that of only primary GC (OPGC). The objective of this study is to compare the survival outcomes between post-GC RGC and OPGC undergoing surgical resection and to identify the prognostic factors of disease-specific survival (DSS) for RGC. Methods: We retrospectively collected data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database among patients who underwent GC surgery in 1988-2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed to compare their overall survival (OS) and DSS. Multivariable Cox analyses were performed to identify the independent prognostic factors of DSS for post-GC RGC by estimating hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: There were 76 patients with RGC and 32,763 patients with OPGC included and analyzed. After balancing the baseline characteristics by PSM, no significant difference existed between OPGC and RGC groups in both OS (P=0.65) and DSS (P=0.28). Fixed-time analyses also showed no difference between the two groups for the 5-year (60.0%, RGC vs. 53.3%, OPGC, P=0.38) and 10-year DSS (56.7%, RGC vs. 48.3%, OPGC, P=0.34). Multivariable analysis revealed that area of lower income ($75,000+ vs. <$55,000, HR =0.21, 95% CI: 0.05-0.89, P=0.03), cardiac tumor [middle vs. cardia, HR =0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.77, P=0.02; distal vs. cardia, HR =0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.58, P=0.01; not otherwise specified (NOS) vs. cardia, HR =0.11, 95% CI: 0.03-0.51, P=0.004], deeper invasion (T3-4 vs. Tis-2, HR =5.19, 95% CI: 1.21-22.15, P=0.03), higher grade (G3 vs. G1-2, HR =7.35, 95% CI: 1.41-38.48, P=0.02) and not receiving chemotherapy (yes vs. no/unknown, HR =0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.60, P=0.007) were independent risk factors for postsurgical DSS in patients with post-GC RGC. Conclusions: The prognosis of post-GC RGC was comparable to that of OPGC following surgical resection. The independent prognostic factors for RGC are similar to those established for OPGC. Our findings suggest that RGC following first GC might be the same entity to OPGC and curative resection should be considered in selected patients.

Incidence and risk of remnant gastric cancer after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a population-based study from the SEER database.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) constitutes a major global health problem, of which remnant gastric cancer (RGC) occurs less frequently. The rate of RGCs after gastrectomy for GC is increasing recently due to improved survival and screening, however, their incidence and risk have not been reported in the U.S. POPULATION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence and elevated risk of RGC after GC gastrectomy in this population, and to identify the risk factors. METHODS: Patients underwent gastrectomy for first primary GC in 2000-2015 and those who developed RGC were identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Fine-Gray regression was used to estimate the cumulative incidence and to identify risk factors. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated by Poisson regression to compare the risk with the general population. RESULTS: Among 21,566 patients included in the cohort, 227 developed RGC. The 20-year cumulative incidence of RGC was 1.88%. Multivariate analysis revealed that older age, invasion depth, male sex, marital status, and lower income are independent risk factors for RGC development. SIR was 7.70 overall and > 4.5 in each stratum. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative incidence and risk for RGCs increased continuously in patients underwent GC gastrectomy. Close and lifelong endoscopy surveillance should be recommended for patients who received GC gastrectomy, especially those with high-risk factors.

Survival outcome of local versus radical resection for jejunoileal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a propensity score-matched population-based analysis.

PURPOSE: Survival after local resection (LR) versus radical resection (RR) has been revealed comparable for patients with rectal and duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), but is unknown for jejunoileal (JI) GISTs. This study aimed to compare the long-term survival between patients with JI GISTs who underwent LR and RR, and to find out the prognostic factors for JI GISTs. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with JI GISTs in 1975-2019 were identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and grouped according to surgical modality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the LR and RR groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared in the full and matched cohorts using Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis. Subgroup sensitivity analyses were also performed. Risk factors associated with DSS were analyzed in multivariate Cox analysis following model selection. RESULTS: 1107 patients diagnosed with JI GISTs were included in the study cohort. After PSM, OS and DSS were comparable in LR and RR groups. Consistently, the two groups had similar DSS in all subgroup analyses. Moreover, multivariate Cox analysis identified lymphadenectomy, older age, larger tumor size, distant metastasis, high and unknown mitotic rate, but not LR, as independent prognostic risk factors for JI GISTs. CONCLUSIONS: We conducted the first population-based comparison between the effect of different surgical modes on survival for patients with JI GISTs. LR can be carried out safely without compromising oncological outcome, and should be considered as a treatment option in selected patients with JI GISTs.

Nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia caused by type B aortic dissection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) is defined as acute intestinal ischemia because of decreased blood flow in mesenteric vessels. Only a few cases of NOMI that occur secondary to aortic dissection (AD) have been reported, resulting in the lack of sufficient knowledge of diagnosis and treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: We aimed to report a case of NOMI caused by type B Aortic Dissection. A 26-year-old male patient was transferred to our hospital with the diagnose of NOMI and aortic dissection in April 2018. The abdominal computed tomography (CT) assists the diagnosis of paralytic intestinal obstruction, intestinal wall pneumatosis, and perforation. Emergency laparotomy revealed that the bowel wall supplied by the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) was pale with the palpable but weak pulsation of the parietal artery. The small intestine was extremely dilated with a paper-thin, fragile wall that was ruptured easily and could not be sutured. In this case, extensive resection and segmental drainage were done. Postoperatively, the digestive tract was reconstructed. However, the patient suffered from iron deficiency anemia and short bowel syndrome eight months later, and unfortunately died from long-term complications. CONCLUSION: Aortic dissection leads to continuous decrease in blood pressure and blood flow to the SMA, considering as a predisposing factor for NOMI. During the treatment, extensive resection and segmental drainage are the optimal surgical strategy, which can make benefit in emergencies especially.