Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33792839›Full record

Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2021

Extended intraoperative peritoneal lavage as prophylactic peritoneal recurrence for locally advanced gastric cancer: a prospective randomized trial.

J Rodríguez-Santiago, A Luna, E Garsot, A Aldeano, C Balagué, A Rada

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

J Rodríguez-SantiagoDepartment of Surgery, Gastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa, University of Barcelona, Plaza Dr. Robert, n. 5, 08221, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain. 25533jrs@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3585-9205
A LunaGastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Consorci Sanitari Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain.
E GarsotGastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
A AldeanoGastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Hospital General de Granollers, Granollers, Spain.
C BalaguéGastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
A RadaGastro-Oesophageal Surgery Unit, Hospital General de Granollers, Granollers, Spain.
Hospital General de Granollers · ESCorporació Sanitària Parc Taulí · ESHospital de Sant Pau · ESHospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol · ESMútua Terrassa · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo demonstrate whether extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) could yield better results in overall survival and less recurrence, regardless of peritoneal cytology, compared to standard peritoneal lavage (SPL).

methodsA prospective randomised multicenter study including 94 patients (47 per arm) to detect a 20% difference in 3-year overall survival in patients with locally advanced tumours without peritoneal carcinomatosis. Three samples of peritoneal fluid were obtained (at the beginning, the end of procedure and after the assigned peritoneal lavage). Clinicopathological and surgical data were analysed by group. Postoperative complications, location of recurrence and surgical approach were evaluated. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the uni/multivariate analysis for prognostic factors was carried out using Cox regression analysis.

resultsA total of 86 patients were analysed (4 excluded per group). No statistical differences were observed in clinicopathological or surgical data between groups, considering both groups well-balanced for analysis. Overall survival at 3 years was 64.3% for SPL vs. 62.3% for EIPL (p 0.421). Only three patients had at least one positive peritoneal cytology (1:2). There were no differences regarding postoperative complications (SPL: 37.2% vs. EIPL: 32.5%, p 0.65) or between location of recurrence and number of recurrences. The number of recurrences did not differ between surgical approaches, but locoregional and peritoneal recurrences were fewer with the laparoscopic approach (p 0.048).

conclusionsThe regular use of extensive peritoneal lavage in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, regardless of peritoneal cytology, has not been effective as prophylaxis of peritoneal recurrence or better survival.

Indexed as

AgedAnalysis of VarianceChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansIntraoperative CareKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPeritoneal LavagePeritoneal NeoplasmsProspective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsExtended intraperitoneal lavageGastric cancerProphylaxis of recurrenceRandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID33792839
OpenAlexW3152282496

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.