ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2017
Lymphadenectomy: state of the art.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the Neoadjuvant Era: Current Status, Clinical Implications and Contentious Issues.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Complete Mesogastric Excisions Involving Anatomically Based Concepts and Embryological-Based Surgeries: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Lymph Node Involvement in Advanced Gastric Cancer in the Era of Multimodal Treatment-Oncological and Surgical Perspective.Cancers · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extent of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer (GC) surgery has been for long time a matter of debate. Randomized trials performed in the West reported worse results of D2 dissection, in terms of postoperative complications and long-term survival benefit, than Eastern series and observational studies from specialized Western centers. However, long-term re-evaluation of such trials and in depth-analysis of other experiences demonstrated the potential benefit of D2 in reducing the probability of cancer-related death and the safety of this procedure when avoiding unnecessary spleno-pancreatectomy and in centers with ad adequate surgical volume. Nowadays, the D2 is considered the standard treatment in most guidelines all over the world. More limited procedures (D1, D1 plus) may be adequate in selected cases, and more extended dissections (D2 plus) could be indicated in advanced forms with high risk of metastases to distant nodes, but in specialized centers or in the setting of clinical studies. The integration with neoadjuvant therapies and multimodality approach could offer a chance of cure in groups of patients with poor results when approached with standard treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.