Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25913578›Full record

SynthesisHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2015

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Lorenzo A Orci, Jeremy Meyer, Christophe Combescure, Leo Bühler, Thierry Berney, Philippe Morel, Christian Toso

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surgical management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unexpected Para-aortic Lymph Node Metastasis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: a Contraindication to Resection?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Management of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma: From where to where?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2019
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lorenzo A OrciDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jeremy MeyerDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christophe CombescureDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Leo BühlerDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Thierry BerneyDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Philippe MorelDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christian TosoDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature.

methodsA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences. Overall survival was analysed for patients with positive and negative lymph nodes. Results were reported according to the PRISMA statement.

resultsFive RCTs were included, accounting for 724 patients. Extended lymphadenectomy was associated with greater operative time [mean difference: 63 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29-96; P < 0.001], increased need for blood transfusions (mean difference: 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.30; P = 0.030) and greater postoperative morbidity (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.25-2.00; P = 0.030), as well as with prolonged diarrhoea after circumferential autonomic nerve dissection around major vessels (OR 12.2, 95% CI 5.3-28.5; P < 0.001). Median survival was similar across the groups in the whole cohort, as well as in subgroups of patients with, respectively, positive and negative lymph nodes.

conclusionsExtended lymphadenectomy has a harmful impact on patients undergoing oncological pancreatoduodenectomy compared with standard lymphadenectomy.

Indexed as

PancreaticoduodenectomyAdenocarcinomaBlood TransfusionHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionOdds RatioOperative TimePancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25913578
PMCPMC4474502
OpenAlexW2000677810

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.