Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32106866›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2020

Is subtotal gastrectomy feasible for the treatment of gastric stump cancer located at the anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy for benign lesions?

Fuhai Ma, Yang Li, Weikun Li, Wenzhe Kang, Hao Liu, Shuai Ma, Bingzhi Wang, Yibin Xie, Yuxin Zhong, Yingtai Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Fuhai MaDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yang LiDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Weikun LiDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Wenzhe KangDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Hao LiuDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Shuai MaDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Bingzhi WangDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yibin XieDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yuxin ZhongDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yingtai ChenDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China.
Liyan XueDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yantao TianDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, 100021, China. zlyytyt@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-9503
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81772642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal gastrectomy (TG) is a widely accepted procedure for treating gastric stump cancer (GSC). However, subtotal gastrectomy (SG) would benefit elective patients with GSC. The aim of this study was to clarify the safety and long-term prognosis of SG in treating GSC after distal gastrectomy for benign lesions.

methodsA total of 53 patients with GSC located at the anastomotic site or gastric body between May 1999 and December 2018 at our hospital were included. In total, 21 patients underwent SG, and the remaining 24 patients underwent TG. Clinicopathological data, operative data, and overall survival (OS) were compared.

resultsThe operative duration, estimated blood loss volume, and length of hospital stay were similar between the SG and TG groups. The postoperative complications were similar between the two groups, but no cases of anastomotic leakage were noted in the SG group. TG was associated with significantly more retrieved lymph nodes than SG (18.5 ± 11.5 vs. 10.7 ± 9.2; p = 0.017), while the number of metastatic lymph nodes did not differ between the groups (2.9 ± 3.5 vs. 1.9 ± 3.6; p = 0.329). The median survival time in the SG group was 81.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 68.906 to 93.094 months), which was similar to the 45.0 months (95% CI, 15.920 to 74.080 months) observed in the TG group (p = 0.236). Both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that tumor location and histological type were prognostic factors, while surgery type was not a prognostic factor. Further stratified analyses according to tumor location revealed that OS was not significantly different between the two groups among patients with tumors located at the anastomotic site, while OS in the TG group was significantly better than that in the SG group among patients with tumors located in the gastric body (p = 0.046).

conclusionsThe results of the current study indicate that SG is a suitable alternative surgical procedure for GSC located at the anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy for benign lesions. The short-term outcomes and long-term prognoses of SG are comparable with those of TG.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalFemaleGastrectomyGastric StumpHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisReoperationStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeAnastomotic siteGastric stump cancerSubtotal gastrectomyTotal gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID32106866
PMCPMC7047362
OpenAlexW3012770188

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.