SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
WITHDRAWN: Extended versus limited lymph nodes dissection technique for adenocarcinoma of the stomach.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extent of lymphadenectomy and perioperative therapies: two open issues in gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Pooled it
- Efficacy of totally laparoscopic compared with laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Gastric cancer: Current status of lymph node dissection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Analysis of surgery for incurable gastric cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2015Article
- Problems faced by evidence-based medicine in evaluating lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a critical review.Oncology reviews · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons disagree about the merits and risks of radical lymph node clearance during gastrectomy for cancer.
objectivesTo evaluate survival and peri-operative mortality after limited or extended lymph node removal during gastrectomy for cancer. SEARCH
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, LILACS, Central Medical Journal Japanese Database and the Cochrane register, references from relevant articles and conference proceedings. We contacted known workers in the field. For the updated review, the Cochrane Library, M EDLINE , E MBASE and LILACS were searched from 2001 to April 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies published after 1970 which reported 5 year survival or postoperative mortality rates, and clearly defined the node dissection performed, were considered. We excluded studies which overtly included patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy, and comparisons with clear systematic treatment allocation bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparisons and observational studies were considered separately. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers selected trials for inclusion. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Results of trials of similar design were pooled. Meta-analysis was performed separately for randomised and non-randomised comparisons. MAIN
resultsTwo randomised and two non-randomised comparisons of limited (D1) versus extended (D2) node dissection and 11 cohort studies of either D1 or D2 resection were analysed. Meta-analysis of randomised trials did not reveal any survival benefit for extended lymph node dissection (Risk ratio = 0.95 (95% CI 0.83 - 1.09), but showed increased postoperative mortality (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.45 - 3.45). Pre-specified subgroup analysis suggested a possible benefit in stage T3+ tumours (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.42-1.10). Non-randomised comparisons showed no significant survival benefit for extended dissection (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 -1.02), but decreased mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.93). Subgroup analysis showed apparent benefit in UICC stage II and IIIa. Observational studies of D2 resection reported much better mortality and survival than those of D1 surgery, but the settings were strikingly different. AUTHORS'
conclusionsD2 dissection carries increased mortality risks associated with spleen and pancreas resection, and probably with inexperience and low case volumes. Randomised studies show no evidence of overall survival benefit, but possible benefit in T3+ tumours. These results may be confounded by surgical learning curves and poor surgeon compliance. Non-randomised comparisons suggest a possible survival benefit for D2 in intermediate UICC stages. Observational studies show high 5 year survival and low operative mortality after D2 dissection in experienced units, and poor results after D1 dissection in non-specialist units. Further studies, with precautions to eliminate learning curve effects, contamination and non-compliance, are needed to evaluate D2 dissection in intermediate stage gastric cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.