ArticleSurgery2018
Maintaining oncologic integrity with minimally invasive resection of pediatric embryonal tumors.
Article in Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Techniques in Minimally Invasive Surgery in Hematologic Malignancies.European journal of haematology · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted resection of pediatric intracavitary lesions: expanding the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- International Society of Paediatric Surgical Oncology (IPSO) Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Guidelines.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
- Essential Knowledge and Skills for the Practice of Pediatric Surgical Oncology: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study by the APSA Cancer Committee.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in neurogenic tumours.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
- Tumor-to-thoracic height ratio as an easy method to predict the feasibility of reduced-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal lesions in children: a single-center experience.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- High-Risk Neuroblastoma: A Surgical Perspective.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- International Society of Paediatric Surgical Oncology (IPSO) Surgical Practice Guidelines.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Association between image-defined risk factors and neuroblastoma outcomes.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2019Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery in Pediatric Surgical Oncology.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmbryonal tumors arise typically in infants and young children and are often massive at presentation. Operative resection is a cornerstone in the multimodal treatment of embryonal tumors but potentially disrupts therapeutic timelines. When used appropriately, minimally invasive surgery can minimize treatment delays. The oncologic integrity and safety attainable with minimally invasive resection of embryonal tumors, however, remains controversial.
methodsQuery of the Vanderbilt Cancer Registry identified all children treated for intracavitary, embryonal tumors during a 15-year period. Tumors were assessed radiographically to measure volume (mL) and image-defined risk factors (neuroblastic tumors only) at time of diagnosis, and at preresection and postresection. Patient and tumor characteristics, perioperative details, and oncologic outcomes were compared between minimally invasive surgery and open resection of tumors of comparable size.
resultsA total of 202 patients were treated for 206 intracavitary embryonal tumors, of which 178 were resected either open (n = 152, 85%) or with minimally invasive surgery (n = 26, 15%). The 5-year, relapse-free, and overall survival were not significantly different after minimally invasive surgery or open resection of tumors having a volume less than 100 mL, corresponding to the largest resected with minimally invasive surgery (P = .249 and P = .124, respectively). No difference in margin status or lymph node sampling between the 2 operative approaches was detected (p = .333 and p = .070, respectively). Advantages associated with minimally invasive surgery were decreased blood loss (P < .001), decreased operating time (P = .002), and shorter hospital stay (P < .001). Characteristically, minimally invasive surgery was used for smaller volume and earlier stage neuroblastic tumors without image-defined risk factors.
conclusionWhen selected appropriately, minimally invasive resection of pediatric embryonal tumors, particularly neuroblastic tumors, provides acceptable oncologic integrity. Large tumor volume, small patient size, and image-defined risk factors may limit the broader applicability of minimally invasive surgery.
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.