Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33825045›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Comparisons of perioperative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis.

Hua-Yang Pang, Lin-Yong Zhao, Zi-Qi Zhang, Danil Galiullin, Xiao-Long Chen, Kai Liu, Wei-Han Zhang, Kun Yang, Xin- Zu Chen, Jian-Kun Hu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Hua-Yang PangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Lin-Yong ZhaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Zi-Qi ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Danil GaliullinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Xiao-Long ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Kai LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Wei-Han ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Kun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Xin- Zu ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Jian-Kun HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. hujkwch@126.com.

Funding

Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province No.2020SZ0147Sichuan Province Youth Science & Technology Innovative Research Team No.2015TD0009West 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University No. ZY2017304
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData about whether laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is applicable in serosa-positive (pT4a) gastric cancer patients remain rare. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy (OG) in pT4a gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection.

methodsA total of 1086 consecutive pT4a patients (101 patients with LG and 985 with OG) who underwent curative gastrectomy in a high-volume center between 2006 and 2016 were evaluated. Demographics, surgical, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance baseline confounders, and COX regression analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors.

resultsAfter PSM adjustment, a well-balanced cohort comprising 101 patients who underwent LG and 201 who underwent OG was analyzed. Operative time (288.7 vs. 234.2 min; P < 0.001) was significantly longer, while estimated blood loss (172.8 vs. 220.7 ml; P < 0.001) was significantly less in the LG group compared with the OG group. There were no significant differences between groups in total number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative stays, readmission rate, and postoperative complication rate. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was not significant different in the LG and OG groups (66.7% vs. 62.8%, P = 0.668), and the subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that the surgical approach was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 1.123; 95%CI: 0.803-1.570; P = 0.499). In sensitivity analysis including 78 pairs well-matched patients operated by an experienced surgeon, the results were similar to these for the matched entire cohort.

conclusionLG can be a safe and feasible approach for pT4a gastric cancer treatment. However, well-designed high-quality RCTs are expected to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyStomach NeoplasmsGastrectomyHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesSerous MembraneTreatment OutcomeGastric cancerLaparoscopic gastrectomyOverall survivalSerosa invasionSurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33825045

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.