Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29375213›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2018

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Is it a must or a fake?

Rossella Reddavid, Silvia Sofia, Paolo Chiaro, Fabio Colli, Renza Trapani, Laura Esposito, Mario Solej, Maurizio Degiuli

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Global trends in artificial intelligence applications for gastric cancer prediction, treatment, and management: a topic modeling and bibliometric analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rossella ReddavidSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy.
Silvia SofiaSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy.
Paolo ChiaroDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Turin, Molinette Hospital, Turin 10126, Italy.
Fabio ColliDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Turin, Molinette Hospital, Turin 10126, Italy.
Renza TrapaniSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy.
Laura EspositoSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy.
Mario SolejSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy.
Maurizio DegiuliSurgical Oncology and Digestive Surgery, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin 10049, Italy. maurizio.degiuli@unito.it.
Creative Research Enterprises (United States) · USUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) effect on the survival of patients with proper stomach cancer submitted to D2 gastrectomy.

methodsWe proceeded to a review of the literature with PubMed, Embase, ASCO and ESMO meeting abstracts as well as computerized use of the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NAC followed by surgery (NAC + S) with surgery alone (SA) for gastric cancer (GC). The primary outcome was the overall survival rate. Secondary outcomes were the site of the primary tumor, extension of node dissection according to Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) performed in both arms, disease-specific (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates, clinical and pathological response rates and resectability rates after perioperative treatment.

resultsWe identified a total of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing NAC + S (

conclusionNAC for GC has been rapidly introduced in international western guidelines without an evidence-based medicine-related demonstration of its efficacy for a homogeneous population of patients with only stomach tumors submitted to adequate surgery following JGCA guidelines with extended (D2) LN dissection. Additional larger sample-size multicentre RCTs comparing the newer NAC regimens including molecular therapies followed by adequate extended surgery with surgery alone are needed.

Indexed as

GastrectomyNeoadjuvant TherapyAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm StagingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsStomach NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeD2 lymphadenectomyGastric cancerNeoadjuvant chemotherapyPerioperative chemotherapyRandomized control trial

Identifiers

PMID29375213
PMCPMC5768946
OpenAlexW2784317668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.