Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26986965›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Prognostic Significance of Molecular Analysis of Peritoneal Fluid for Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Kai Deng, Hong Zhu, Mo Chen, Junchao Wu, Renwei Hu, Chengwei Tang

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

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The levels of SYT13 and CEA mRNAs in peritoneal lavages predict the peritoneal recurrence of gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019
    Article
  9. Observational
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.

Kai DengDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Hong ZhuDepartment of Abdominal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Mo ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Junchao WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Renwei HuDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Chengwei TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurately distinguishing serosal invasion in patients with gastric cancer (GC) prior to surgery can be difficult. Molecular analysis of peritoneal fluid (MAPF) for free cancer cells with higher sensitivity than other methods; however, its prognostic value for GC remains controversial, precluding its application in clinical practice.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE and other databases were systematically searched. Thirty-one studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and peritoneal recurrence-free survival (PRF).

resultsThe current meta-analysis focused on patients with GC and negative cytological diagnoses. The results showed that positive MAPF status (MAPF+) led to poorer prognoses for OS (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.99-3.37), DFS (HR 4.92, 95% CI 3.28-7.37) and PRF (HR 2.81, 95% CI 2.12-3.72) compared with negative MAPF status (MAPF-). Moreover, among the patients with GC who received curative treatment, the MAPF+ patients had poorer prognoses for OS (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.49-4.29), DFS (HR 3.90, 95% CI 2.74-5.57) and PRF (HR 5.45, 95% CI 3.70-8.03). A meta-analysis of multivariate-adjusted HRs demonstrated that MAPF+ status was an independent prognostic factor for patients with GC who underwent curative treatment (OS: HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.47-3.28; PRF: HR 3.44, 95% CI 2.01-5.87). Using the identical target genes (CEA, CEA/CK20) as molecular markers, the patients with GC who were MAPF+ had significantly worse prognoses for OS (CEA: HR 3.03, 95% CI 2.29-4.01; CEA/CK20: HR 4.24, 95% CI 2.42-7.40), DFS (CEA: HR 3.99, 95% CI 2.24-7.12; CEA/CK20: HR 4.31, 95% CI 1.49-2.48) and PRF (CEA: HR 4.45, 95% CI 2.72-7.31; CEA/CK20: HR 6.46, 95% CI 3.62-11.55) than the patients who were MAPF-. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The above results demonstrate that MAPF could be a prognostic indicator for patients with GC who have a negative cytological diagnosis and/or are receiving curative treatment. MAPF could provide clinicians with additional prognostic information that could aid in developing individualized treatment plans prior to surgery. The widely used target genes CEA, CEA/CK20 were confirmed to be valuable MAPF markers for predicting the prognosis of GC.

Indexed as

Ascitic FluidBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenHumansPrognosisStomach NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic Antigen

Identifiers

PMID26986965
PMCPMC4795629

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.