Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34890023›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022

Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes.

Sivesh K Kamarajah, Ewen A Griffiths, Alexander W Phillips, Jelle Ruurda, Richard van Hillegersberg, Wayne L Hofstetter, Sheraz R Markar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The impact of age on long-term survival following gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Sivesh K KamarajahDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2748-0011
Ewen A GriffithsDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Alexander W PhillipsNorthern Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle University Trust Hospitals, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Jelle RuurdaUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Richard van HillegersbergUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wayne L HofstetterThoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Sheraz R MarkarDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. s.markar@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer.

methodsData from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010-2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.

resultsPatients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17-1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56-0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings.

conclusionDespite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34890023
PMCPMC8989809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.