SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Ex-vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy in Margin Assessment of Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of prognosis between neoadjuvant imatinib and upfront surgery for GIST: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Identification of Risk Factors in Postoperative Urinary Dysfunction for Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for GIST management in high- and low-throughput centres across Canada.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Review
- Anal canal gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST).BMJ case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic impact of microscopically positive margins (R1) on primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies up to 23 November 2020. The pooled disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between R1 and negative margins (R0) were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: Twenty studies with 6,465 patients were included. Compared with R0 resection, R1 was associated with poor DFS in patients who did not receive adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.26-2.09; P = 0.48, I Conclusion: R1 was associated with poor DFS for primary GISTs, which was attenuated by adjuvant therapy with Imatinib. Similar result was observed in the gastric GISTs subgroup. Rectal GIST patients with R1 resection had poor DFS even when they received adjuvant Imatinib. The R1 margin did not influence the OS of GISTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.