Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24415881›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Adjuvant chemotherapy, p53, carcinoembryonic antigen expression and prognosis after D2 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Ming-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The prognostic significance of p53 expression in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Ming-Ming HeMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Dong-Sheng ZhangMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Feng WangMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Zhi-Qiang WangMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Hui-Yan LuoMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Chao RenMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Ying JinMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Dong-Liang ChenMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.
Rui-Hua XuMing-Ming He, Dong-Sheng Zhang, Feng Wang, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Chao Ren, Ying Jin, Dong-Liang Chen, Rui-Hua Xu, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate adjuvant chemotherapy, p53 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) expression and prognosis after D2 gastrectomy for stage II/III gastric adenocarcinoma.

methodsA total of 286 patients with stage II or III gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy between May 2007 and December 2010 were enrolled into this study. One hundred and sixty-nine of these patients received surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy, and 117 patients received surgery alone. Tumor expression of p53 and CEA proteins in all patients was evaluated immunohistochemically and correlated with clinicopathological parameters. The Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) with log-rank testing were used to compare the survival difference. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariate analysis.

resultsPatients with adjuvant chemotherapy had a significantly better median OS (50.87 mo vs 30.73 mo, P = 0.000) and median DFS (36.30 mo vs 25.60 mo, P = 0.001) than patients with surgery alone in the entire cohort. Consistent results with the entire cohort were found in stage II (P = 0.006 and P = 0.047), stage III (P = 0.005 and P = 0.030), and stage IIIB/IIIC patients (P = 0.000 and P = 0.001). The median OS and DFS advantages were confirmed by multivariate analysis (P = 0.000 and P = 0.008) and maintained when the analyses were restricted to fluoropyrimidine monotherapy (P = 0.003 and P = 0.001) and fluoropyrimidine plus platinum regimen (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007), however, not the fluoropyrimidine plus taxane (P = 0.198 and P = 0.777) or platinum plus taxane (P = 0.666 and P = 0.687) regimens. Median OS and median DFS did not differ significantly between the patients with p53(+) and p53(-) tumors (P = 0.608 and P = 0.064), or between patients with CEA(+) and CEA(-) tumors (P = 0.052 and P = 0.989), which were maintained when the analyses were restricted to surgery alone (p53: P = 0.864 and P = 0.431; CEA: P = 0.142 and P = 0.948), adjuvant chemotherapy (p53: P = 0.802 and P = 0.091; CEA: P = 0.223 and P = 0.946) and even different chemotherapy regimens (P > 0.05).

conclusionPatients after D2 gastrectomy for stage II/III gastric adenocarcinoma had significantly better survival after fluoropyrimidine monotherapy and fluoropyrimidine plus platinum. p53 and CEA were not prognostic.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoembryonic AntigenChemotherapy, AdjuvantChi-Square DistributionDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleGastrectomyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedCarcinoembryonic AntigenTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53Adjuvant chemotherapyCarcinoembryonic antigenGastric adenocarcinomaImmunohistochemistryp53

Identifiers

PMID24415881
PMCPMC3886018

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.