Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27051075›Full record

SynthesisDisease markers2016

Prognostic Value of Perineural Invasion in Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Aiqin Gao, Linlin Wang, Juan Li, Hongyu Li, Yali Han, Xiaoxia Ma, Yuping Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Disease markers, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Radiomics to predict PNI in ESCC.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Efficacy of machine learning modelsNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Aiqin GaoDepartment of Oncology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, China.
Linlin WangDepartment of Oncology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, China; Department of Radiotherapy, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Jinan 250117, China.
Juan LiSchool of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
Hongyu LiDepartment of Medical Insurance, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, China.
Yali HanSchool of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
Xiaoxia MaEndoscopy Center, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1190-7583
Yuping SunDepartment of Oncology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHere we aimed to clarify the prognostic significance of perineural invasion (PNI) in esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) carcinoma.

methodsA comprehensive literature search for relevant reports published up to July 2015 was performed using Pubmed and Embase databases. The pooled HR and 95% CI for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were used to assess the prognostic value. The association of PNI with pathological characteristics was evaluated by OR and 95% CI.

resultsA total of 13 cohorts were retrieved, covering 2770 patients treated by surgery. The cumulative analysis revealed a statistical correlation between PNI and poor OS (HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.54-2.20, and P < 0.00001), as well as poor DFS (HR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.42-2.71, and P < 0.001). Moreover, analysis of 1475 patients showed improved PNI in T3 + T4 (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21-0.70, and P = 0.002), N+ (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69, and P < 0.00001), and G3 + G4 (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.48-0.90, and P = 0.008) patients compared with T1 + T2, N-, and G1 + G2 ones, respectively. No significant heterogeneity was found between the studies.

conclusionsPNI is an adverse prognostic biomarker in esophageal and EGJ carcinoma. Moreover, PNI implies advanced T, N stage and poor cell differentiation.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagogastric JunctionGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessPeripheral NervesPrognosisSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID27051075
PMCPMC4802032

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.