ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2015
Total number of lymph nodes in oncologic resections, is there more to be found?
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based prediction of lymph node metastasis and occult tumor cells in gastric cancer using histopathological images: a retrospective study.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- A prospective analysis of lymph node retrieval in colorectal cancer: discrepancies, neoadjuvant impact, and practical implications.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Lymph node harvest as a predictor of survival for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Review
- Predicting lymph node metastasis from primary tumor histology and clinicopathologic factors in colorectal cancer using deep learning.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Article
- A Population-based Study on Lymph Node Retrieval in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.Annals of surgical oncology · 2018Article
- Assessment of lymph node involvement in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathologic staging of oncologic specimens includes the identification of the accurate lymph node status. Retrieving more lymph nodes leads to a more reliable N0 status in the TNM classification. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether more lymph nodes can be retrieved from oncologic resection specimens when more time is invested in the search and if this contributes to a more reliable N-status in the individual patient. A total of 67 gastrointestinal oncologic specimens were reexamined for additional lymph nodes. The mean number of lymph nodes collected in the prospective group was compared against two retrospective groups, one before minima for lymph node counts were set (retrospective group 1) and one after (retrospective group 2). More lymph nodes were dissected per specimen in the prospective group (24.1 lymph nodes), compared to the retrospective group (14.3 lymph nodes, P = <0.001). During the study period, more patients were diagnosed as pN+ compared to the two retrospective groups (62.7 vs. 47.8 % respectively, P = 0.082). Significantly more lymph nodes can be found in oncologic specimens when more time is invested in the search. This will result in more accurate staging of the tumor.
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.