Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27502921›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2016

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy for R0 resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: an up-to-date meta-analysis.

Meng-Long Zhou, Mei Kang, Gui-Chao Li, Xiao-Mao Guo, Zhen Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative effectiveness of adjuvant treatments for resected gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2018
    Article
  17. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Meng-Long ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong An Rd, Shanghai, 200032, PR China.
Mei KangInstitute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, School of Public Health, Fudan University, 130 Dong An Rd, Shanghai, 200032, PR China.
Gui-Chao LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong An Rd, Shanghai, 200032, PR China.
Xiao-Mao GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong An Rd, Shanghai, 200032, PR China. guoxm1800@163.com.
Zhen ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong An Rd, Shanghai, 200032, PR China. zhenzhang7@163.com.
Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CNFudan University · CNFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis meta-analysis aims to provide more evidence on the role of postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for gastric cancer (GC) patients in Asian countries where D2 lymphadenectomy is prevalent.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), extracted data of survival and toxicities, and pooled data to evaluate the efficacy and toxicities of CRT compared with chemotherapy (CT) after D2 lymphadenectomy.

resultsA total of 960 patients from four RCTs were selected. The results showed that postoperative CRT significantly reduced loco-regional recurrence rate (LRRR: RR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.34-0.74, P = 0.0005) and improved disease-free survival (DFS: HR = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.60-0.89, P = 0.002). However, CRT did not affect distant metastasis rate (DMR: RR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.60-1.08, P = 0.15) and overall survival (OS: HR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.11, P = 0.34). The main grade 3-4 toxicities manifested no significant differences between the two groups.

conclusionsOverall, CRT after D2 lymphadenectomy may reduce LRRR and prolong DFS. The role of postoperative CRT should be further investigated in the population with high risk of loco-regional recurrence.

Indexed as

AsiaChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalGastrectomyHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeChemoradiotherapyD2 surgeryMeta-analysisStomach neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27502921
PMCPMC4977857
OpenAlexW2511384764

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.