Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352659›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2020

What is the role of lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer patients with clinically suspected lateral lymph node metastasis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Xuyang Yang, Shuo Yang, Tao Hu, Chaoyang Gu, Mingtian Wei, Xiangbing Deng, Ziqiang Wang, Zongguang Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Xuyang YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Shuo YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Tao HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Chaoyang GuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Mingtian WeiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xiangbing DengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ziqiang WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2874-1535
Zongguang ZhouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLocal lateral recurrence (LLR) in rectal cancer is increasingly becoming a significant clinical issue. Preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and lateral lymph node dissection (LLND)-when each approach is separately executed-cannot cure lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM). Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of nCRT plus total mesorectal excision (TME) vs TME plus LLND after nCRT for rectal cancer.

methodsStandard databases (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched to identify all relevant studies comparing nCRT+TME and nCRT+TME+LLND. Data in the included studies were extracted, and intraoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and oncological outcomes were evaluated.

resultsEight studies representing 1,896 patients (1,461 nCRT+TME vs 435 nCRT+TME+LLND) were included. We found that for patients with clinically suspected LLNM, the incidence of pathological LLNM was 27.8%, even after nCRT. LLND after nCRT was significantly associated with lower LLR (P = .02). Additional LLND yielded a longer operative time (P < .01) and increased the risk of urinary dysfunction (P < .01). Concerning other outcomes, no significant differences were identified between the two groups.

conclusionThis is the first meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing nCRT+TME and nCRT+TME+LLND for rectal cancer patients. Although increasing operative time and the risk of urinary dysfunction (which might be ameliorated by minimally invasive procedures), the pooled results support the use of LLND after nCRT and TME for reducing LLR in patients with clinically suspected LLNM and provide another treatment option for high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Preoperative CareChemoradiotherapyCombined Modality TherapyHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisRectal Neoplasmslateral lymph nodelateral lymph node dissectionmeta-analysisneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID32352659
PMCPMC7333827
OpenAlexW3021271826

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.