Esophagogastric cancer after sleeve gastrectomy and roux-en-Y gastric bypass, its prevalence and risk factors: A meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose: In light of the increasing prevalence of esophagogastric cancer (EGC), the altered anatomy after bariatric surgery (BS) (mainly laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [LSG] and roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]) presents difficulties in treating these cancers. The article focuses on the risk factors associated with the development of EGC post-LSG and RYGB. Methods: Relevant articles were identified from databases such as SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science (from 2010 to May 2022). From the selected and screened articles, a meta-analysis was performed using different statistical methods by calculating odds ratios, the t -test, and the discrepancies (95% confidence interval), to estimate the incidence of GC. Publication bias was estimated based on Cochrane risk tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: The study included case reports (26), random control trials (RCT) (2), case series (6), and prospective (2) and retrospective studies (5). The current article also includes one each of epidemiological and medical administrative database studies. The 43 selected articles comprised 807,458 patients with BS, where 57.5% underwent LSG and 42.5% underwent RYGB. The average age and body mass index (BMI) were 48.11 and 43.53 ± 8.97 in the case of LSG, respectively. The average age was 52.77 and BMI was 42.62 ± 9.21 for RYGB. The obtained results suggested that cancer development is at higher risk in LSG among patients with comorbidities, absence of Helicobacter pylori , and delayed diagnosis, irrespective of their smoking habit. The incidence of the tumor or cancer and its severity is higher after LSG with 41.17% in comparison to RYGB 9.52%. A significant variation was observed in the period of cancer diagnosis. A minimum of 2 and 4 months and a maximum of 96 and 252 months variation have been observed for LSG and RYGB, respectively. No publication bias was noticed based on the selected articles. Furthermore, no direct correlation was identified or measured between the development of ECG and LSG/REYGB surgeries from the collected literature. EGC therapy following BS is complex and requires a personalized strategy that carefully balances optimal treatment with anatomical limitations. Conclusions: The risk factors like obesity, comorbidities, smoking, H. pylori infection, tumor stage, and diagnostic tests must be evaluated before BS. Although the current evidence-based practice does not advocate for a routine preoperative endoscopy, we highly advise for a preoperative endoscopic procedures before BS in the presence of the highlighted EGC risk factors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».