Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35764996›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2022

Transthoracic, thoracoabdominal, and transabdominal surgical approaches for gastric cardia adenocarcinomas: a survival evaluation based on a cohort of 7103 patients.

Yao Chen, Xue Ke Zhao, Rui Hua Xu, Xin Song, Miao Miao Yang, Fu You Zhou, Ling Ling Lei, Zong Min Fan, Xue Na Han, She Gan Gao and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oesophagectomy or Total Gastrectomy for the Management of Siewert II Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

24 authors.

Yao ChenState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Xue Ke ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Rui Hua XuState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Xin SongState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Miao Miao YangState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Fu You ZhouDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Anyang Tumor Hospital, Anyang, Henan Province, China.
Ling Ling LeiState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Zong Min FanState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Xue Na HanState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
She Gan GaoDepartment of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, Henan Province, China.
Xian Zeng WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Linzhou People's Hospital, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Zhi Cai LiuDepartment of Oncology, Tumor Hospital of Linzhou, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Ai Li LiDepartment of Oncology, Tumor Hospital of Linzhou, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Wen Jun GaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Linzhou People's Hospital, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Jing Feng HuState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Li Guo ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Central Hospital of Xinxiang, Xinxiang, Henan Province, China.
Jin Chang WeiDepartment of Pathology and Thoracic Surgery, Linzhou Esophageal Cancer Hospital, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Fu Lin JiaoDepartment of Pathology and Thoracic Surgery, Linzhou Esophageal Cancer Hospital, Linzhou, Henan Province, China.
Kan ZhongState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Wei Peng WangDepartment of Pathology and Thoracic Surgery, Centre for Health Screening and Endoscopy, Cixian People's Hospital, Cixian, Hebei Province, China.
Liu Yu LiState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Jia Jia JiState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China.
Xue Min LiDepartment of Pathology and Thoracic Surgery, Centre for Health Screening and Endoscopy, Cixian People's Hospital, Cixian, Hebei Province, China.
Li Dong WangState Key Laboratory of Esophageal Cancer Prevention & Treatment and Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China. ldwang@zzu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compared the survival outcomes of different surgical approaches to determine the optimal approach for gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and aimed to standardize the surgical treatment guidelines for GCA.

methodsA total of 7103 patients with GCA were enrolled from our previously established gastric cardia and esophageal carcinoma databases. In our database, when the epicenter of the tumor was at or within 2 cm distally from the esophagogastric junction, the adenocarcinoma was considered to originate from the cardia and was considered a Siewert type 2 cancer. The main criteria for the enrolled patients included treatment with radical surgery, no radio- or chemotherapy before the operation, and detailed clinicopathological information. Follow-up was mainly performed by telephone or through home interviews. According to the medical records, the surgical approaches included transthoracic, thoracoabdominal, and transabdominal approaches. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to correlate the surgical approach with survival in patients with GCA.

resultsThere were marked differences in age and tumor stage among the patients who underwent the three surgical approaches (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that survival was related to sex, age, tumor stage, and N stage (P < 0.001 for all). Cox regression model analysis revealed that thoracoabdominal approach (P < 0.001) and transabdominal approach (P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for poor survival. GCA patients treated with the transthoracic approach had the best survival (5-year survival rate of 53.7%), and survival varied among the different surgical approaches for different tumor stages.

conclusionThoracoabdominal approach and transabdominal approach were shown to be poor prognostic factors. Patients with (locally advanced) GCA may benefit from the transthoracic approach. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsCardiaEsophagogastric JunctionHumansClinicopathologyGastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA)Surgical approachSurvival

Identifiers

PMID35764996
PMCPMC9238161

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.