Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852475›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Efficacy of capecitabine and oxaliplatin versus S-1 as adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer after D2 lymph node dissection according to lymph node ratio and N stage.

Kabsoo Shin, Se Jun Park, Jinsoo Lee, Cho Hyun Park, Kyo Young Song, Han Hong Lee, Ho Seok Seo, Yoon Ju Jung, Jae Myung Park, Sung Hak Lee and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Thromboembolic events in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Efficacy of Postoperative FOLFOXFrontiers in oncology · 2020
    Article
  12. Observational
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kabsoo ShinDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea.
Se Jun ParkDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea.
Jinsoo LeeDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea.
Cho Hyun ParkDepartment of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyo Young SongDepartment of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Han Hong LeeDepartment of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Ho Seok SeoDepartment of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Yoon Ju JungDepartment of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Jae Myung ParkDepartment of Gastric Cancer Centre, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Sung Hak LeeDepartment of Gastric Cancer Centre, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Sang Young RohCancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
In-Ho KimDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-701, South Korea. ihkmd@catholic.ac.kr.
Seoul St. Mary's Hospital · KRCatholic University of Korea · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe sought to assess the prognostic significance of lymph node ratio (LNR) and N stage in patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy, S-1, and XELOX and to compare the efficacy of them according to LNRs and N stages to evaluate the clinical impact of using LNRs compared with using N staging.

methodsPatients undergoing D2 gastrectomy with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III gastric cancer between Mar 2011 and Dec 2016 were analysed. Of the 477 patients enrolled, 331 received S-1 and 146 received XELOX. LNR groups were segregated as 0, 0-0.1, 0.1-0.25, and > 0.25 (LNR0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimise potential selection bias and compare DFS and OS stratified by LNRs and N stages in the two treatment groups.

resultsAfter PSM, the sample size of each group was 110 patients, and variables were well balanced. All patients had more than 15 examined lymph nodes (median 51, range 16~124). In multivariate analysis, LNR (> 0.25) and N stage (N3) showed independent prognostic value in OS and DFS, but LNR (> 0.25) showed better prognostic value. In subgroup analysis, the LNR3 group showed better 5-year DFS (20% vs 54%; HR 0.29; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (26% vs 67%; HR 0.28; p = 0.020) in the XELOX group. The N3 group showed better 5-year DFS (38% vs 66%; HR 0.40; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (47% vs 71%; HR 0.45; p = 0.019) in the XELOX group. Stage IIIC showed better 5-year DFS (22% vs 57%; HR 0.32; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (27% vs 68%; HR 0.32; p = 0.009) in the XELOX group. The LNR3 group within N3 patients showed better 5-year DFS (21% vs 55%; HR 0.31; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (27% vs 68%; HR 0.34; p = 0.018) in the XELOX group.

conclusionsLNR showed better prognostic value than N staging. LNR3, N3 and stage IIIC groups showed the superior efficacy of XELOX to that of S-1. And the LNR3 group within N3 patients showed more survival benefit from XELOX. LNR > 0.25, N3 stage and stage IIIC were the discriminant factors for selecting XELOX over S-1.

trial registrationNot applicable (retrospective study).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineChemotherapy, AdjuvantDrug CombinationsFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOxaliplatinOxonic AcidCapecitabineDrug CombinationsOxaliplatinOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)TegafurCapecitabineGastric cancerLymph node ratiosN stageOxaliplatinPropensity score matchingTegafur

Identifiers

PMID31852475
PMCPMC6921502
OpenAlexW2996467764

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.