Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27647967›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2016

Evaluation of rational extent lymphadenectomy for local advanced gastric cancer.

Han Liang, Jingyu Deng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Should All Stage N3b Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer Be Considered Equivalent? A 30-Year Single Center Study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Han LiangGastric Cancer Surgical Department, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinic Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Jingyu DengGastric Cancer Surgical Department, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinic Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based upon studies from randomized clinical trials, the extended (D2) lymph node dissection is now recommended as a standard procedure for local advanced gastric cancer worldwide. However, the rational extent lymphadenectomy for local advanced gastric cancer has remained a topic of debate in the past decades. Due to the limitation of low metastatic rate in para-aortic nodes (PAN) in JCOG9501, the clinical benefit of D2+ para-aortic nodal dissection (PAND) for patients with stage T4 and/or stage N3 disease, which is very common in China and other countries except Japan and Korea, cannot be determined. Furthermore, the role of splenectomy for complete resection of No.10 and No.11 nodes has been controversial, and however, the final results from the randomized trial of JCOG0110 have yet to be completed. Gastric cancer with the No.14 and No.13 lymph node metastasis is defined as M1 stage in the current version of the Japanese classification. We propose that D2+No.14v and +No.13 lymphadenectomy may be an option in a potentially curative gastrectomy for tumors with apparent metastasis to the No.6 nodes or infiltrate to duodenum. The examined lymph node and extranodal metastasis are significantly associated with the survival of gastric cancer patients.

Indexed as

D2+No.14v lymphadenectomyextended (D2) lymphadenectomypara-aortic nodal dissection (PAND)Re-evaluation

Identifiers

PMID27647967
PMCPMC5018534
OpenAlexW2512413415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.