This paper reviews the basic knowledge of noncognitive abilities, which have been greatly discussed literature in recent years, and deliberate implications for medical education. Noncognitive ability is a term that implies separation from being a cognitive ability. However, here, the binary value of ability does not refer to a wide range of cognitive abilities, but rather to a narrower range of abilities measured by intelligence tests and academic achievement tests. Noncognitive ability is defined in terms of four aspects: noncognitive, measurable, predictive, and intervening. Noncognitive competence includes many psychological characteristics, all of which are important in the practice of medicine and should be systematically developed.

Purpose: Most studies have investigated the differences in postgastrectomy quality of life (QOL) based on the surgical procedure or reconstruction method adopted; only a few studies have compared QOL based on tumor location. This large-scale study aims to investigate the differences in QOL between patients with esophagogastric junction cancer (EGJC) and those with upper third gastric cancer (UGC) undergoing the same gastrectomy procedure to evaluate the impact of tumor location on postoperative QOL. Methods: The Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45) questionnaire was distributed in 70 institutions to 2,364 patients who underwent gastrectomy for EGJC or UGC.A total of 1,909 patients were eligible for the study, and 1,744 patients who underwent total gastrectomy (TG) or proximal gastrectomy (PG) were selected for the final analysis. These patients were divided into EGJC and UGC groups; thereafter, the PGSAS-45 main outcome measures (MOMs) were compared between the two groups for each type of gastrectomy. Results: Among the post-TG patients, only one MOM was significantly better in the UGC group than in the EGJC group. Conversely, among the post-PG patients, postoperative QOL was significantly better in 6 out of 19 MOMs in the UGC group than in the EGJC group. Conclusions Tumor location had a minimal effect on the postoperative QOL of post-TG patients, whereas among post-PG patients, there were definite differences in postoperative QOL between the two groups. It seems reasonable to conservatively estimate the benefits of PG in patients with EGJC compared to those in patients with UGC.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the effects of 4 main types of gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer on postoperative symptoms, living status, and quality of life (QOL) using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45). Materials and Methods: We surveyed 1,685 patients with upper one-third gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy (TG; n=1,020), proximal gastrectomy (PG; n=518), TG with jejunal pouch reconstruction (TGJP; n=93), or small remnant distal gastrectomy (SRDG; n=54). The 19 main outcome measures (MOMs) of the PGSAS-45 were compared using the analysis of means (ANOM), and the general QOL score was calculated for each gastrectomy type. Results: Patients who underwent TG experienced the lowest postoperative QOL. ANOM showed that 10 MOMs were worse in patients with TG. Four MOMs improved in patients with PG, while 1 worsened. One MOM was improved in patients with TGJP versus 8 MOMs in patients with SRDG. The general QOL scores were as follows: SRDG (+39 points), TGJP (+6 points), PG (+3 points), and TG (−1 point). Conclusions The TG group experienced the greatest decline in postoperative QOL. SRDG and PG, which preserve part of the stomach without compromising curability, and TGJP, which is used when TG is required, enhance the postoperative QOL of patients with proximal gastric cancer. When selecting the optimal gastrectomy method, it is essential to understand the characteristics of each and actively incorporate guidance to improve postoperative QOL.