Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31510966›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Risk evaluation of splenic hilar or splenic artery lymph node metastasis and survival analysis for patients with proximal gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy: a retrospective study.

Peng Ding, Ziming Gao, Chen Zheng, Junqing Chen, Kai Li, Shan Gao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparison on the Efficacy of Double Tract Gastric Interposition Reconstruction Versus Jejunal Interposition Reconstruction After Proximal Gastrectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng DingDepartment of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China.
Ziming GaoDepartment of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China.
Chen ZhengDepartment of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China.
Junqing ChenDepartment of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China.
Kai LiDepartment of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China.
Shan GaoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Sanhao Street 36, Shenyang, 110001, China. mount1121@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-6815
First Hospital of China Medical University · CNChina Medical University · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province No.2015020500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs splenectomy and spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy are performed only in some proximal gastric cancer patients, it is difficult to identify patients who have undergone radical gastrectomy with or without splenic hilar (No.10) or splenic artery (No.11) lymph node metastases. We aimed to determine the risk factors for No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases and evaluate the survival significance of No.10 and No.11 lymph node dissection in advanced proximal gastric cancer patients.

methodsA total of 873 advanced proximal gastric cancer patients who underwent curative gastrectomy with or without splenectomy or pancreaticosplenectomy were analyzed retrospectively. The clinicopathological characteristics of 152 patients who underwent splenectomy or pancreaticosplenectomy were analyzed to determine the risk factors for No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases. The survival difference between patients with No.10 and No.11 lymph node dissections and those who did not undergo these dissections were compared.

resultsPatients with No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases had very poor prognoses. Tumor invasion of the greater curvature and No.2 and No.4 lymph node metastases were independent risk factors for No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases. No survival differences were evident between patients with No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases who underwent No.10 and No.11 lymph node dissections and those who did not undergo these dissections but were at high risks of No.10 and No.11 lymph node metastases.

conclusionsSplenic hilar or splenic artery lymph node dissection was not associated with increased survival, in proximal gastric cancer patients without direct cancer invasion of the spleen and pancreas, regardless of whether splenectomy, pancreaticosplenectomy, or spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy was performed.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleGastrectomyHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSpleenSplenic ArteryMetastasisPrognosisProximal gastric cancerSplenic hilar lymph node

Identifiers

PMID31510966
PMCPMC6737705
OpenAlexW2972776713

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.