Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21234760›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2011

Gastric cancer: surgery in 2011.

Katja Ott, Florian Lordick, Susanne Blank, Markus Büchler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Development and external validation of preoperative risk models for operative morbidities after total gastrectomy using a Japanese web-based nationwide registry.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Preliminary study of surgical audit for overall survival following gastric cancer resection.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2015
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Katja OttDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. katja.ott@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Florian Lordick
Susanne Blank
Markus Büchler
Heidelberg University · DEHeidelberg University · USKlinikum Braunschweig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of gastric cancer is more and more becoming an individualized decision. The choice of the optimal approach is based on prognostic factors, on the anatomic site of the tumor, and on expectations about the response to neoadjuvant treatment. Early gastric cancer that is limited to the mucosal layer is the domain of endoscopic resections. As soon as the submucosal layer is invaded, surgical strategies with adequate lymphadenectomy become necessary. DISCUSSION: In many East Asian Centers and some other centers in the world, these tumors are resected by a laparoscopic approach. With a high experience, this can be done with excellent quality and outcome. In locally advanced gastric cancer, multimodal treatment can improve survival in comparison to surgery alone. However, the strategies differ significantly around the world. While adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is standard in the USA, in Europe, perioperative chemotherapy is the first choice, and in Japan, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended. In Europe, three randomized phase III studies on the value of preoperative chemotherapy have been performed. Two of them have shown that perioperative chemotherapy does significantly improve the survival of patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach and of the esophagogastric junction. The one including only preoperative chemotherapy failed to show a survival benefit for the combined treatment arm but showed excellent outcomes in both the surgery alone and the preoperative chemotherapy arms. Based on these studies, patients with stage II or stage III disease are now treated with perioperative chemotherapy. Additionally, it is generally accepted for more than 10 years now that responding patients have a significantly improved prognosis compared to nonresponding patients. The percentage of responding patients varies depending on the applied regimen between 20% and 45%. Therefore, early response evaluation or response prediction is an utmost important field of research. Proximal tumors are treated with a transhiatal extended gastrectomy, tumors in the middle third with a total gastrectomy, and distal tumors with a subtotal gastrectomy, if possible. Modified D2 lymphadenectomy avoiding splenectomy is now accepted as the standard procedure, providing improved prognosis for certain subgroups of patients. Individualized resection and lymphadenectomy techniques for early tumor stages and response-based neoadjuvant concepts for locally advanced tumors are the challenge for the future.

Indexed as

Chemotherapy, AdjuvantGastrectomyGastroscopyHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, AdjuvantStomach NeoplasmsSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID21234760
OpenAlexW2067981880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.