Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716191›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2016

Comparison of different methods of splenic hilar lymph node dissection for advanced upper- and/or middle-third gastric cancer.

Xin Ji, Tao Fu, Zhao-De Bu, Ji Zhang, Xiao-Jiang Wu, Xiang-Long Zong, Zi-Yu Jia, Biao Fan, Yi-Nan Zhang, Jia-Fu Ji

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Retropancreatic Fusion Fascia Oriented Splenic Hilar Lymphadenectomy Versus Laparoscopic Approach In D2 Total Gastrectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Xin JiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Tao FuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Zhao-De BuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Ji ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Xiao-Jiang WuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Xiang-Long ZongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Zi-Yu JiaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Biao FanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yi-Nan ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China.
Jia-Fu JiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Key laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Haidian District Fucheng Road No. 52, Beijing, 100142, China. jijiafu_pku@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) often includes dissection of splenic hilar lymph nodes (SHLNs). This study compared the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to SHLN dissection for upper- and/or middle-third AGC.

methodsWe retrospectively compared and analyzed clinicopathologic and follow-up data from a prospectively collected database at the Peking University Cancer Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups: in situ spleen-preserved, ex situ spleen-preserved and splenectomy.

resultsWe analyzed 217 patients with upper- and/or middle-third AGC who underwent R0 total or proximal gastrectomy with splenic hilar lymphadenectomy from January 2006 to December 2011, of whom 15.2 % (33/217) had metastatic SHLNs, and from whom 11.4 % (53/466) of the dissected SHLNs were metastatic. The number of harvested SHLNs per patient was higher in the ex situ group than in the in situ group (P = 0.017). Length of postoperative hospital stay was longer in the splenectomy group than in the in situ group (P = 0.002) or the ex situ group (P < 0.001). The splenectomy group also lost more blood volume (P = 0.007) and had a higher postoperative complication rate (P = 0.005) than the ex situ group. Kaplan-Meier (log rank test) analysis showed significant survival differences among the three groups (P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed operation duration (P = 0.043), blood loss volume (P = 0.046), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.005), and N stage (P < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors for survival.

conclusionsThe ex situ procedure was more effective for SHLN dissection than the in situ procedure without sacrificing safety, whereas splenectomy was not more effective, and was less safe. The SHLN dissection method was not an independent risk factor for survival in this study.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesSpleenStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeAdvanced gastric cancerSplenectomySplenic hilar lymph node dissectionSplenic preservation

Identifiers

PMID27716191
PMCPMC5048608

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.