Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24497999›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for gastric carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A-Man Xu, Lei Huang, Wei Liu, Shuang Gao, Wen-Xiu Han, Zhi-Jian Wei

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A prognostic model based on the COL1A1-network in gastric cancer.American journal of translational research · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A-Man XuAnhui Medical University, Hefei, China ; Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Lei HuangAnhui Medical University, Hefei, China ; Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Wei LiuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Liver Disease Research, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuang GaoAnhui Medical University, Hefei, China ; Department of Medical Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Wen-Xiu HanAnhui Medical University, Hefei, China ; Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Zhi-Jian WeiAnhui Medical University, Hefei, China ; Department of General Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University · CNAnhui Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on Gastric carcinoma (GC) has been extensively studied, while its survival and surgical benefits remain controversial. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing efficacy, safety and other outcomes of NAC followed by surgery with surgery alone (SA) for GC.

methodsWe systematically searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Springer for RCTs comparing NAC with SA when treating GC. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were 3-year and 5-year survival rates, survival time, and total and perioperative mortalities. Secondary outcomes included down-staging effects, R0 resection rate, and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) according to type of data. NAC-related objective response, safety and toxicity were also specifically analyzed.

resultsA total of 9 RCTs comparing NAC (n = 511) with SA (n = 545) published from 1995 to 2010 were identified. SA tended to be accompanied with higher overall mortality rate than NAC (46.03% vs 40.61%, RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, P = 0.14). Significantly, higher incidence of cases without regional lymph node metastasis observed upon resection were achieved among patients receiving NAC than those undergoing SA (25.68% vs 16.95%, RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.20-3.06, P = 0.006). All other parameters were comparable. Of the evaluable patients, 43.0% demonstrated either complete or partial response. The comprehensive NAC-related side-effect rate was 18.2% among patients available for safety assessment.

conclusionsNAC contributes to lowering nodal stages, and potentially reduces overall mortality. Response rate may be an important influential factor impacting advantages, with chemotherapy-related adverse effects as a drawback. This level 1a evidence doesn't support NAC to outweigh SA in terms of survival and surgical benefits when dealing with GC.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24497999
PMCPMC3907439
OpenAlexW2065503078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.