Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26350550›Full record

Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2015

A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing D2 dissection in laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Ming Cui, Ziyu Li, Jiadi Xing, Zhendan Yao, Maoxing Liu, Lei Chen, Chenghai Zhang, Hong Yang, Nan Zhang, Fei Tan and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological gastric surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Short-term outcomes in minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy: the differences between East and West. A systematic review of the literature.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Current clinical trials on gastric cancer surgery in China.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Evolution of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer in the East and West.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ming CuiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery IV, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, 52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, China.
Ziyu Li
Jiadi Xing
Zhendan Yao
Maoxing Liu
Lei Chen
Chenghai Zhang
Hong Yang
Nan Zhang
Fei Tan
Beihai Jiang
Jiabo Di
Zaozao Wang
Jiafu Ji
Xiangqian Su
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic surgery is an acceptable alternative to open surgery in colorectal cancer treatment. However, in gastric cancer, there is not much scientific evidence. Here, we proposed a prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate the radicalness and safety of laparoscopic D2 dissection for gastric cancer. From October 2010 to September 2012, 300 patients with gastric cancer were randomized to undergo either laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) or conventional open gastrectomy (OG) with D2 dissection. Clinicopathological parameters, recovery and complications were compared between these two groups. Thirty cases were excluded because of refusing to be involved in the trial, having peritoneal seeding metastasis or LAG conversed to OG, and finally 270 cases were analyzed (128 in LAG and 142 in OG). No significant differences were observed in gender, age, body mass index, stages and types of radical resection [radical proximal gastrectomy (PG + D2), radical distal gastrectomy (DG + D2) and radical total gastrectomy (TG + D2)] (P > 0.05). The number of harvested lymph nodes (HLNs) was similar (29.3 ± 11.8 in LAG vs. 30.1 ± 11.4 in OG, P = 0.574). And in the same type of radical resection, no significant difference was found in the number of HLNs between the two groups (PG + D2, P = 0.770; DG + D2, P = 0.500; TG + D2, P = 0.993). The morbidity of the LAG group (21.8 %) was also comparable to the OG group (19.0 %, P = 0.560). However, the LAG group had significantly less blood loss and faster recovery, and a longer operation time (P < 0.05). Laparoscopic D2 dissection is feasible, safe and capable of fulfilling oncologic criteria for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaFemaleGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID26350550
OpenAlexW1795540927

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.