Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962836›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2016

Distal Pancreatectomy With En Bloc Celiac Axis Resection for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Haibing Gong, Ruirui Ma, Jian Gong, Chengzong Cai, Zhenshun Song, Bin Xu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Distal and Total Pancreatectomy With En Bloc Celiac Axis Resection for Pancreatic Cancer at a High-Volume Center.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Spanish multicenter study of surgical resection of pancreatic tumors infiltrating the celiac axis: does the type of pancreatectomy affect results?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Observational
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Haibing GongFrom the Department of Digestive Surgery (GH, MR), Central Hospital of Shanghai Songjiang District; and Department of General Surgery (GJ, CC, SZ, XB), Shanghai 10th People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ruirui Ma
Jian Gong
Chengzong Cai
Zhenshun Song
Bin Xu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac resection (DP-CAR) is used to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the advantages and disadvantages of this surgical procedure remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its clinical safety and efficacy.Studies regarding DP-CAR were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases. Articles were selected according to predesigned inclusion criteria, and data were extracted according to predesigned sheets. Clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of DP-CAR were systematically reviewed by hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (OR) using fixed- or random-effects models.Eighteen studies were included. DP-CAR had a longer operating time and greater intraoperative blood loss compared to distal pancreatectomy (DP). A high incidence of vascular reconstruction occurred in DP-CAR: 11.53% (95%CI: 6.88-18.68%) for artery and 33.28% (95%CI: 20.45-49.19%) for vein. The pooled R0 resection rate of DP-CAR was 72.79% (95% CI, 46.19-89.29%). Higher mortality and morbidity rates were seen in DP-CAR, but no significant differences were detected compared to DP; the pooled OR was 1.798 for mortality (95% CI, 0.360-8.989) and 2.106 for morbidity (95% CI, 0.828-5.353). The pooled incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 31.31% (95%CI, 23.69-40.12%) in DP-CAR, similar to that of DP (OR = 1.07; 95%CI, 0.52-2.20). The pooled HR against DP-CAR was 5.67 (95%CI, 1.48-21.75) for delayed gastric emptying. The pooled rate of reoperation was 9.74% (95%CI, 4.56-19.59%) in DP-CAR. The combined 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates in DP-CAR were 65.22% (49.32-78.34%), 30.20% (21.50-40. 60%), and 18.70% (10.89-30.13%), respectively. The estimated means and medians for survival time in DP-CAR patients were 24.12 (95%CI, 18.26-29.98) months and 17.00 (95%CI, 13.52-20.48) months, respectively. There were no significant differences regarding postoperative 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates between DP-CAR and DP, whereas DP-CAR had a better 1-year survival rate compared to palliative treatments. The pooled HR for overall survival between DP-CAR and DP was 1.36 (95%CI: 0.997-1.850); the pooled HR favoring DP-CAR was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.25-0.58) for overall survival compared to palliative treatments. The rate of cancer-related pain relief from DP-CAR was 89.20% (95%CI, 77.85-95.10%). The pooled incidence of postoperative diarrhea was 37.10% (95%CI, 20.79-57.00%); however, most diarrhea was effectively controlled.DP-CAR is feasible and acceptable in terms of its survival benefits and improved quality of life. However, it should be performed with caution due to its high postoperative morbidity.

Indexed as

Celiac ArteryHumansPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26962836
PMCPMC4998917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.