Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32277356›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Muneharu Fujisaki, Norio Mitsumori, Toshihiko Shinohara, Naoto Takahashi, Hiroaki Aoki, Yuya Nyumura, Seizo Kitazawa, Katsuhiko Yanaga

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. LaparoscopicWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Muneharu FujisakiDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. muneharu@pb3.so-net.ne.jp.
Norio MitsumoriDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Toshihiko ShinoharaDepartment of Surgery, Machida Municipal Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Naoto TakahashiDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Hiroaki AokiDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Yuya NyumuraDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Seizo KitazawaDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Katsuhiko YanagaDepartment of Surgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan.
Jikei University School of Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to determine its safety and feasibility.

methodsWe retrospectively investigated 51 patients who underwent gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer [cT3-4/N1-3 or macroscopic type 3 (> 80 mm) or type 4] following NAC between November 2009 and January 2018. After excluding two patients who underwent palliative surgery due to peritoneal dissemination, 49 patients were ultimately selected for this cohort study. The patients were then divided into the LG group and open gastrectomy (OG) group, after which the clinicopathological characteristics as well as short- and long-term outcomes were examined.

resultsCompared with the OG group, the LG group demonstrated a significantly lower amount of intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The overall complication rates were 10% (2 of 20 patients) and 24% (7 of 29 patients) in the LG and OG groups (P = 0.277), respectively. No significant differences in 5-year disease-free (LG 44.4% vs. OG 53.3%; P = 0.382) or overall survival rates (LG 46.9% vs. OG 54.0%; P = 0.422) were observed between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the surgical procedure (LG vs. OG) was not an independent risk factor for disease-free (P = 0.645) or overall survival (P = 0.489).

conclusionsLG may be a potential therapeutic option for patients with gastric cancer following NAC considering its high success rates and acceptable short- and long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

GastrectomyLaparoscopyNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPostoperative CareRetrospective StudiesGastric cancerLaparoscopic surgeryLong-term outcomeNeoadjuvant chemotherapyShort-term outcome

Identifiers

PMID32277356
OpenAlexW3015462383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.