ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Efficacy of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy for elderly patients with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhase III trials have shown the non-inferiority of minimally invasive distal gastrectomy (MIDG) comparison with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with gastric cancer; however, it remains unclear whether MIDG is also effective in the elderly. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of MIDG in elderly gastric cancer patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study included 316 patients older than 75 years with clinical stage I/IIA gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy from August 2008 to December 2016 at the Shizuoka Cancer Centre. The long-term outcomes between MIDG and ODG were compared after propensity score matching.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, there were 97 patients each in the MIDG and ODG groups, with an improved balance of confounding factors between the two groups. MIDG was associated with significantly longer operative time and a lower level of blood loss than ODG. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups. Survival outcomes were better in the MIDG group than in the ODG group (overall survival; P = 0.034, relapse-free survival; P = 0.027). In the multivariable analysis, ODG [hazard ratio (HR) 1.971, P = 0.046], being 80 years or older (HR 2.285, P = 0.018), male sex (HR 2.428, 95% P = 0.024), and poor physical status (HR 2.324, P = 0.022) were identified as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.
conclusionsWe found that MIDG showed better efficacy than ODG in elderly gastric cancer patients. MIDG is an acceptable option for elderly patients.
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.