Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26891953›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2016

Prognostic role of microscopically positive margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaofei Zhi, Baofei Jiang, Junbo Yu, Oluf Dimitri Røe, Jun Qin, Qingfeng Ni, Luning Sun, Meirong Xu, Jianwei Zhu, Lilin Ma

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Affibody-targeted fluorogen activating protein for in vivo tumor imaging.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2017
    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

10 authors.

Xiaofei ZhiDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Baofei JiangDepartment of General Surgery, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an 223001, China.
Junbo YuEmergency Department, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Oluf Dimitri RøeClinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Clinical Institute, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jun QinDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Qingfeng NiDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Luning SunResearch Division of Clinical Pharmacology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing 210029, China.
Meirong XuDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Jianwei ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.
Lilin MaDepartment of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, 20 Xisi Road, Nantong 226001, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact and management of microscopically positive margins in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) remain unclear. The aim of this study is to estimate the prognostic value of surgical margins for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with primary GISTs. Twelve studies with 1985 GIST patients were included. The overall recurrence rate in R1 resection and R0 resection group was 0.364 (95% CI 0.299-0.429) and 0.296 (95% CI 0.161-0.430), respectively. Meta-analysis confirmed that a microscopically positive margin could significantly impact the disease-free survival (HR 1.596, 95% CI 1.128-2.258; I(2) = 37.5%, P value = 0.091), but had no influence on overall survival (HR 1.430, 95% CI 0.608-3.363; I(2) = 60.8%, P value = 0.013). Importantly, subgroup analysis revealed that adjuvant imatinib treatment could attenuate the risk of recurrence for primary GIST patients who received R1 resection. (HR 1.308, 95% CI 0.583-2.935; I(2) = 53.2%, P value = 0.074). The level of evidence achieved in this study was "moderate" for DFS and "low" for OS. In conclusion, this study revealed that a microscopically positive margin is an unfavorable prognostic factor for GIST patients with R1 resection, and adjuvant imatinib treatment is proved to be effective.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionDisease-Free SurvivalGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOdds RatioPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsPublication Bias

Identifiers

PMID26891953
PMCPMC4759596

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.