Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34792614›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022

Clinical significance of lower perigastric lymph nodes dissection in Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: a retrospective propensity score matched study.

Zong-Lin Li, Lin-Yong Zhao, Wei-Han Zhang, Kai Liu, Hua-Yang Pang, Xiao-Long Chen, Xin-Zu Chen, Kun Yang, Jian-Kun Hu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zong-Lin Li *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Lin-Yong Zhao *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Wei-Han ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Kai LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Hua-Yang PangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Xiao-Long ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Xin-Zu ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Kun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Jian-Kun HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Sichuan Province, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, China. hujkwch@126.com.
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China No.8210102679sichuan science and technology program No.2021YFS0111sichuan science and technology program No.20YYJC3357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal surgical procedure, whether total gastrectomy (TG) or proximal gastrectomy (PG), for Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been standardised, primarily because the optimal extent of lymph node (LN) dissection for AEG based on the metastatic rate of perigastric LNs remains under debate. The aim of this study was to investigate the metastatic incidence and prognostic significance of lower perigastric lymph nodes (LPLN), including No.4d, 5, 6 and 12a LN stations, in Siewert type II/III AEG.

methodsA total of 701 patients with Siewert type II/III AEG who received transabdominal open gastrectomy (425 patients with TG and 276 patients with PG) from 2010 to 2015 in West China Hospital were retrospectively included. Based on the clinicopathological information of TG patients, the risk factors of LPLN-positive patients were evaluated, and the metastatic incidence as well as the therapeutic value (TV) index of each LN station was assessed. Moreover, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates between LPLN-positive and LPLN-negative groups were compared in TG patients, and the postoperative survival difference between TG and PG patients was also compared, using propensity score matching (PSM) method.

resultsTumour size (≥ 5 cm, OR = 1.481, p = 0.002) and pT stage (pT4, OR = 2.755, p = 0.024) were significant risk factors for patients with LPLN metastasis. For patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, the metastatic rates of LPLN for Siewert type II, III and II/III AEG were 31.67%, 34.69% and 33.03%, whereas the TV indexes of LPLN for them were 5.76, 5.62 and 5.38, respectively. LPLN was a significant independent prognostic factor (HR = 1.422, p = 0.028), and positive LPLN was related to worse prognosis (p < 0.05). For patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, TG patients were illustrated to have a better prognosis than PG patients, with 5-year OS rates of 58.9% vs 38.2% for Siewert type II AEG (χ2 = 4.159, p = 0.041), 68.9% vs 50.2% for Siewert type III AEG (χ2 = 5.630, p = 0.018) and 65.1% vs 40.3% for Siewert type II/III AEG (χ2 = 12.604, p < 0.001), respectively.

conclusionsLPLN metastasis is a poor prognostic factor for patients with Siewert II/III AEG. LPLN dissection may improve the long-term survival of patients with tumour size more than 5 cm or pT4 stage, and TG might be more suitable for this kind of cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsEsophagogastric JunctionGastrectomyHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesAdenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG)Lower perigastric lymph nodes (LPLN)Proximal gastrectomy (PG)Total gastrectomy (TG)

Identifiers

PMID34792614
OpenAlexW3211487514

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.