Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26494952›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Evaluation and treatment of malignant ascites secondary to gastric cancer.

Hiromichi Maeda, Michiya Kobayashi, Junichi Sakamoto

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Advances in the treatment of malignant ascites in China.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hiromichi MaedaHiromichi Maeda, Michiya Kobayashi, Cancer Treatment Center, Kochi Medical School, Kochi 783-8505, Japan.
Michiya KobayashiHiromichi Maeda, Michiya Kobayashi, Cancer Treatment Center, Kochi Medical School, Kochi 783-8505, Japan.
Junichi SakamotoHiromichi Maeda, Michiya Kobayashi, Cancer Treatment Center, Kochi Medical School, Kochi 783-8505, Japan.
Kochi Medical School Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malignant ascites affects approximately 10% of patients with gastric cancer (GC), and poses significant difficulties for both patients and clinicians. In addition to the dismal general condition of affected patients and the diversity of associated complications such as jaundice and ileus, problems in assessing scattered tumors have hampered the expansion of clinical trials for this condition. However, the accumulation of reported studies is starting to indicate that the weak response to treatment in GC patients with malignant ascites is more relevant to their poor prognosis rather than to the ascites volume at diagnosis. Therefore, precise assessment of initial state of ascites, repetitive evaluation of treatment efficacy, selection of suitable treatment, and swift transition to other treatment options as needed are paramount to maximizing patient benefit. Accurately determining ascites volume is the crucial first step in clinically treating a patient with malignant ascites. Ultrasonography is commonly used to identify the existence of ascites, and several methods have been proposed to estimate ascites volume. Reportedly, the sum of the depth of ascites at five points (named "five-point method") on three panels of computed tomography images is well correlated to the actual ascites volume and/or abdominal girth. This method is already suited to repetitive assessment due to its convenience compared to the conventional volume rendering method. Meanwhile, a new concept, "Clinical Benefit Response in GC (CBR-GC)", was recently introduced to measure the efficacy of chemotherapy for malignant ascites of GC. CBR-GC is a simple and reliable patient-oriented evaluation system based on changes in performance status and ascites, and is expected to become an important clinical endpoint in future clinical trials. The principal of treatment for GC patients with ascites is palliation and prevention of ascites-related symptoms. The treatment options are various, including a standard treatment based on the available guidelines, cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic HIPEC alone, intravenous chemotherapy, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and molecular targeting therapy. Although each treatment option is valid, further research is imperative to establish the optimal choice for each patient.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresDiagnostic ImagingAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAscitesHumansHyperthermia, InducedIncidenceMolecular Targeted TherapyPalliative CarePredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeAscitesClinical benefitGastric cancerPaclitaxelPeritoneal dissemination

Identifiers

PMID26494952
PMCPMC4607895
OpenAlexW1842568537

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.