Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296021›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Feasibility of Preserving No. 5 and No. 6 Lymph Nodes in Gastrectomy of Proximal Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of 395 Patients.

Xiao Yang, Yanan Zheng, Runhua Feng, Zhenggang Zhu, Min Yan, Chen Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao YangDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Yanan ZhengDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Runhua FengDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Zhenggang ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Min YanDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Chen LiDepartment of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gastric Neoplasms, Shanghai, China.
Ruijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The extent of regional lymphadenectomy for proximal gastric cancer (PGC) has remained a controversy and a matter of considerable debate for a long time. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological features to investigate the predictive factors for No. 5 and/or No. 6 lymph node metastases (LNMs) and evaluate the feasibility of performing proximal gastrectomy (PG) with preservation of No. 5 and/or No. 6 lymph nodes for these patients. Method: Patients who had undergone total gastrectomy plus D2 lymphadenectomy in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, from January 2008 to December 2017 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Results: Among the 395 eligible patients in our study, 34 patients (8.61%) had No. 5 and No. 6 LNM. The degree of differentiation, Borrmann classification, vascular or perineural invasion, tumor diameter, depth of invasion, and other perigastric LNM were associated with No. 5 and/or No. 6 LNM. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor diameter ≥4 cm, No. 4 LNM positive, and No. 7, No. 8, No. 9 LNM positive were independent risk factors of No. 5 and/or No. 6 LNM. No. 5 and/or No. 6 LNM was not observed in the 105 patients who were staged from T1 to T3 and were found to be without independent risk factors. Conclusion: The metastatic rate of No. 5 and/or No. 6 lymph node of the proximal gastric adenocarcinoma was closely associated with the diameter of the tumor and other perigastric LNMs. It is feasible to preserve No. 5 and No. 6 lymph nodes with PG for the T1-T3 patients with lower risk of No. 5 and/or No. 6 LNM.

Indexed as

gastrectomylymph node metastasislymph nodes no. 5 and no. 6predictive factorsproximal gastric cancer

Identifiers

PMID35296021
PMCPMC8919512
OpenAlexW4225663411

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.