Figures (0)  Tables (3)
    • Metric Year No. of
      questions      		 Advantages Disadvantages Frequency
      of use
      GSRS[14] 1988 15 Specifically developed to address symptoms; Relatively brief The validity for the GSRS has not been established at the time Moderate
      QLQ-C30[15] 1993 30 The only English questionnaire related to cancer at that time Combining with QLQ-STO22, too many problems, need a longer time High
      QLQ-STO22[16,17] 2001 22 It focuses on upper gastrointestinal symptoms and is applicable to all aspects of multi-mode gastric cancer treatment Combining with QLQ-C30, too many problems, need a longer time High
      FACT-G[18,19] 1993 28 Covers broader dimensions that are important to quality of life, such as social and emotional factors Repeated testing is not feasible Low
      FACT-GA[19,20] 2011 19 Suitable for repeated testing Focuses on social and emotional aspects Low
      GIQLI[21] 1995 36 Wide applicability, the results can be used to measure the subjective well-being of patients It is impossible to distinguish specific types of gastrointestinal disease. Low
      DAUGS32[22−24] 2005 32 At that time, it was the only evaluation tool used to evaluate the postoperative quality of life of upper gastrointestinal tumors. This scale could help doctors and their families to choose better surgical methods to reduce the symptoms of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction Not suitable for long postoperative follow-up; pays more attention to symptoms and lack of problems related to postoperative life status and quality Low
      PGSAS-45[10] 2015 45 The only comprehensive questionnaire suitable for evaluating patients after different types of gastrectomy or reconstruction Too many problems, need a longer time High
      PROMIS[25] 2004 > 300 appropriate for patients with a wide variety of chronic diseases and conditions No specific evaluation for gastric cancer Low

      Table 1. 

      Quality of life related to gastric cancer surgery.

    • First author Year Country Design N Groups Superior
      group      		 Metric Symptom advantage
      Nakamura[23] 2011 Japan Retrospective 165 DG; TG; PPG DG DAUGS32 Deglutition disturbances, pain, total DAUGS32 score
      Tomikawa[46] 2012 Japan Retrospective 21 PPG; DG PPG GSRS Body weight loss, improved anemia
      Takiguchi[33] 2015 Japan Retrospective 586 TG; PG PG PGSAS-45 Weight loss, necessity for additional meals, diarrhea, dumping
      Lee[47] 2016 Korea Match 178 STG; TG STG EORTC-C30 STO22 Social functioning, nausea, vomiting, eating restrictions, taste
      Kim[48] 2016 Korea RCT 163 VPG; CG VPG EORTC-STO22 Diarrhea, appetite loss
      Nishigori[49] 2017 Japan Retrospective 62 PG; TG PG PGSAS-45 Reflux, body weight loss, diarrhea, dissatisfaction with symptoms
      Takahashi[41] 2017 Japan Retrospective 868 TG; DG DG PGSAS-45 Body weight loss, esophageal reflux, eeal-related distress, dissatisfaction with meals, necessity for additional meals, dissatisfaction with daily life
      Hosoda[37] 2017 Japan Cross-sectional 112 PPG; DG PPG PGSAS-45 Dumping, diarrhea, dissatisfaction with meals, dissatisfaction with work
      Park[50] 2018 Korea Retrospective 80 PG; TG ND EORTC-C30 STO22 ND
      Eom[51] 2019 Korea Retrospective 296 PPG; DG DG EORTC-C30 STO22 Delayed gastric emptying, reflux, pain
      Huang[52] 2020 China Retrospective 91 PPG; DG PPG EORTC-C30 STO22 Emotional functioning, insomnia, appetite loss, reflux, taste problem
      STG, subtotal gastrectomy; VPG, vagus nerve preserving distal gastrectomy; CG, conventional distal gastrectomy; ND, no difference; RCT, randomized controlled trial; GSRS, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale; EORTC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; DAUGS32, the 32-item study of the Dysfunction after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer.

      Table 2. 

      Extent of resection.

    • First author Year Country Design N Groups Superior group Metric Symptom advantage
      Kim[67] 2008 Korea RCT 164 LADG; ODG LADG
      (> 3 months
      and < 1 year)      		 EORTC-C30 STO22 Physical, role, emotional, social; Fatigue, pain, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, dysphasia, Gastroesophageal reflux, dietary restriction, anxiety, dry mouth, body image
      Kobayashi[59] 2011 Japan Retrospective 98 LADG; ODG LADG EORTC-C30 STO22 Physical functioning (12 months postoperatively), fatigue, dyspnea, dysphagia
      Lee[62] 2012 Korea Retrospective 80 LADG; ODSG ODSG EORTC-C30 STO22 Role, cognitive, fatigue, eating restriction, anxiety
      Liu[61] 2012 China Retrospective 74 LADG; ODG LADG EORTC-C30 STO22 Role, cognitive, emotional, social, constipation, reflux, body image
      Lee[68] 2012 Korea RCT 159 LAG; OG LAG GIQLI Physical, symptom
      Kim[69] 2013 Korea RCT 164 LADG; ODG ND
      (> 1 year)      		 EORTC-C30 STO22 Dysphagia lower in LADG; Dyspnea lower in ODG
      Misawa[60] 2015 Japan Prospective 145 LAG; OG LAG EORTC-C30 STO22 Role, emotional, cognitive, social, pain, fatigue, eating restriction, anxiety, taste problems
      Tanaka[70] 2024 Japan Prospective 59 LAG; OG PGSAS EORTC-C30 STO22 dissatisfaction at working score
      LADG, laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy; OG, open gastrectomy; LAG, laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy; ODG, open distal gastrectomy; ODSG, open distal subtotal gastrectomy; ND, no difference; RCT, randomized controlled trial; GSRS, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale; EORTC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; DAUGS32, the 32-item study of the Dysfunction after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer; PGSAS, Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale

      Table 3. 

      Minimally invasive vs open approach.