Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255293›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2022

Clinical Significance of Lymph Node Dissection and Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Appendiceal Tumor Patients After Curative Resection: a Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Hiroshi Takeyama, Kohei Murata, Takashi Takeda, Makoto Fujii, Yoshinori Kagawa, Hiroshi Kawachi, Tatsuro Yamaguchi, Shingo Noura, Toshiki Masuishi, Akira Inoue and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

18 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi TakeyamaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Minoh City Hospital, Minoh, Japan. htakeyama.gesurg@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1672-8349
Kohei MurataDepartment of Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan.
Takashi TakedaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan.
Makoto FujiiDepartment of Mathematical Health Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan.
Yoshinori KagawaDepartment of Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan.
Hiroshi KawachiDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Tatsuro YamaguchiDepartment of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shingo NouraDepartment of Surgery, Toyonaka Municipal Hospital, 4-14-1, Shibahara-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-8565, Japan.
Toshiki MasuishiDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Akira InoueDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Yasumasa TakiiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Takeshi SutoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yamagata Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamagata, Japan.
Kazuhiro SakamotoDepartment of Coloproctological Surgery, Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsuyoshi TeiDepartment of Surgery, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Sakai, Japan.
Mitsuo KishimotoDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Kyoto City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Takashi YaoDepartment of Human Pathology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenichi SugiharaTokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
study group of appendiceal neoplasms in Japan Society of Colorectal Cancer Research Group
Juntendo University · JPKansai Rosai Hospital · JPThe University of Osaka · JPToyonaka Municipal Hospital · JPAichi Cancer Center · JPJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JPKyoto City Hospital · JPNiigata Cancer Center Hospital · JPOsaka Prefectural Medical Center · JPOsaka Rosai Hospital · JPTokyo Medical and Dental University · JPTokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital · JPYamagata Prefectural Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDue to its rarity and biological heterogeneity, guidelines for primary appendiceal tumor (PAT) are based on scarce evidence, resulting in no strong recommendations. The present study explored prognosis-related factors, including the timing of lymph node dissection (LND), in PAT patients after curative resection (CR) to determine the optimal surgical therapies.

methodsWe retrospectively collected and analyzed data from 404 patients with PATs who underwent CR at 43 tertiary hospitals from 2000 to 2017. This manuscript is based on revised manuscript during review process. Please, change the bold characters to normal characters in the manuscript.

resultsAfter propensity score matching, there were no marked differences in the recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) between the primary and secondary LND groups (P = 0.993 and 0.728). A multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis (LNM) was an independent factor for the RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-6.13; P = 0.031) and OS (HR 4.70; 95% CI 1.40-15.76; P = 0.012). There were significant associations between the LNM rates and tumor depth (P < 0.0001) and the histological type (P = 0.006). There was no LNM in patients with low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) or well-differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma (G1) or patients with any Tis or T1 PATs.

conclusionsLNM was an independent prognostic predictor in PATs after CR with LND. Tumor depth and histological type were not prognostic predictors but were LNM predictors. Secondary LND based on the pathological findings of resected specimens is considered an acceptable surgical management without a worse prognosis than primary LND, and it may be omitted in LAMN+G1 or in any Tis and T1 PATs.

Indexed as

Appendiceal NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesAppendiceal mucinous adenocarcinomaAppendiceal non-mucinous adenocarcinomaAppendiceal tumorLymph node dissectionLymph node metastasis

Identifiers

PMID34255293
OpenAlexW3178839857

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.