ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Is There Any Role for Super-Extended Limphadenectomy in Advanced Gastric Cancer? Results of an Observational Study from a Western High Volume Center.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: Could the robotic approach provide any benefits than laparoscopy?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the Neoadjuvant Era: Current Status, Clinical Implications and Contentious Issues.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcome of resectable gastric cancer patients with small para-aortic lymph node.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The Need for Artificial Intelligence Based Risk Factor Analysis for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- D2 vs D2 Plus Para-aortic Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Gastric Cancer.Turkish journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of Conventional Statistical Methods with Machine Learning in Medicine: Diagnosis, Drug Development, and Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 9501 trial did not find that prophylactic D3 lymphadenectomy led to any survival advantage over D2 lymphadenectomy, it did find that the prognosis of subserosal and N0 gastric cancer patients improved. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to compare survival after D2 or D3 lymphadenectomy in different patient subgroups.
methodsThe study considered all of the patients who underwent D2 or D3 lymphadenectomy at a high-volume center in Verona (Italy) between 1992 and 2011. After excluding patients with Bormann IV or neuroendocrine tumors, early gastric cancers, or non-curative resections, the analysis involved 301 R0 patients: 100 who underwent D2, and 201 who underwent D3 lymphadenectomy. Post-operative deaths and deaths due to recurrences were considered as terminal events in the survival analysis.
resultsThe D2 patients were significantly older than the D3 patients at baseline (69.8 ± 2.3 vs. 62.2 ± 10.7 years). The median number of retrieved nodes was 29 (interquartile range: 24.5-39) after D2, and 43 (34-52) after D3. The five-year disease-related survival rate was similar after D2 (44%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 34-54%) and D3 (41%, 34-48%) (
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that D3 lymphadenectomy is not routinely indicated for patients with advanced gastric cancer, although differences in survival after D3 across T tiers deserve further consideration.
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.