Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37527401›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2023

The prognostic impact of pre-treatment cachexia in resectional surgery for oesophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Leo R Brown, Judith Sayers, Michael S Yule, Thomas M Drake, Ross D Dolan, Donald C McMillan, Barry J A Laird, Stephen J Wigmore, Richard J E Skipworth

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer cachexia: molecular basis and therapeutic advances.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Leo R BrownClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6181-7020
Judith SayersClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Michael S YuleClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Thomas M DrakeCentre for Medical Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9334-6494
Ross D DolanAcademic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Donald C McMillanAcademic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Barry J A LairdInstitute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Stephen J WigmoreClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Richard J E SkipworthClinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1428-4078
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBGlasgow Royal Infirmary · GBCancer Research UK Scotland Institute · GBEdinburgh Cancer Research · GB

Funding

NHS Research Scotland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer cachexia is not purely an end-stage phenomenon and can influence the outcomes of patients with potentially curable disease. This review examines the effect of pre-treatment cachexia on overall survival, in patients undergoing surgical resection of oesophagogastric cancer.

methodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases was conducted, from January 2000 to May 2022, to identify studies reporting the influence of cachexia on patients undergoing an oesophagogastric resection for cancer with curative intent. Meta-analyses of the primary (overall survival) and secondary (disease-free survival and postoperative mortality) outcomes were performed using random-effects modelling. Meta-regression was used to examine disease stage as a potential confounder.

resultsTen non-randomized studies, comprising 7186 patients, were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence of pre-treatment cachexia was 35 per cent (95 per cent c.i.: 24-47 per cent). Pooled adjusted hazard ratios showed that cachexia was adversely associated with overall survival (HR 1.46, 95 per cent c.i.: 1.31-1.60, P < 0.001). Meta-analysis of proportions identified decreased overall survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years in cachectic cohorts. Pre-treatment cachexia was not a predictor of disease-free survival and further data are required to establish its influence on postoperative mortality. The proportion of patients with stage III/IV disease was a significant moderator of between-study heterogeneity. Cachexia may have a greater influence on overall survival in studies where more patients have a locally advanced malignancy.

conclusionPre-treatment cachexia adversely influences overall survival following resection of an oesophagogastric malignancy.

Indexed as

CachexiaNeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37527401
PMCPMC10638534
OpenAlexW4385444005

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.