Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35212980›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2022

Positive circumferential resection margin in locally advanced esophageal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jie Wu, Yuqian Hu, Liwei Xu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2022. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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, 2 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jie WuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 East Banshan Rd, Hangzhou, 310022, China. wujie@zjcc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8513-212X
Yuqian HuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 East Banshan Rd, Hangzhou, 310022, China.
Liwei XuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 East Banshan Rd, Hangzhou, 310022, China.
Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of positive circumferential resection margin on prognosis in esophageal cancer is under controversy. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses had limitations. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic impact of positive circumferential resection margin in esophageal cancer.PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating the association between circumferential resection margin status and prognosis in esophageal cancer. Study population were focused on T3 and/or T4a patients. Study selection was based on availability of survival information (Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted analysis). Random-effects models were used to summarize hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival.According to College of American Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.53; P < 0.0001) and 2.00 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.84; P < 0.0001), respectively. According to the Royal College of Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48; P < 0.0001) and 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.57; P < 0.0001), respectively.ompared with negative circumferential resection margin, positive circumferential resection margin is associated with worse survival outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMargins of ExcisionPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesCircumferential resection marginEsophageal cancerPrognosisSurvival

Identifiers

PMID35212980
OpenAlexW4214540634

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.