Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768447›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2023

SOX combined with sintilimab versus SOX alone in the perioperative management of locally advanced gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Xingmao Huang, Jingquan Fang, Ling Huang, Hang Chen, Han Chen, Tengjiao Chai, Zeyao Ye, Hanguang Chen, Qi Xu, Yian Du and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xingmao Huang *Department of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Jingquan Fang *Department of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Ling Huang *Department of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Hang ChenDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Han ChenDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Tengjiao ChaiDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Zeyao YeDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Hanguang ChenDepartment of General Surgery, No. 2 People's Hospital of Yuhang District, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Qi XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Yian DuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China.
Pengfei YuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, 310022, Zhejiang, China. ypfzmu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-1919
Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNZhejiang Cancer Hospital · CNZhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

Hangzhou Health Science and Technology Plan B20210433Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province LBZ22H160002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of SOX combined with a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor compared with SOX alone in the perioperative management of locally advanced gastric cancer and to explore biomarkers that may predict response to anti-PD-1 therapy.

methodsData of patients with clinical stage T3-4aN0-3M0 (IIb-III) gastric cancer were reviewed to create a primary database. Patients treated with perioperative SOX combined with sintilimab were included in Group A, while those treated with SOX alone were included in Group B. After one-to-one propensity score matching, pathological response and short-term survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. In addition, potential efficacy-related biomarkers were analyzed.

resultsBetween January 2018 and December 2022, a total of 150 patients were included in the analysis, with 75 patients in each group. The rates of pathological complete response (21.3% vs. 4.0%; P = 0.001) and major pathological response (45.3% vs. 22.7%; P = 0.003) in Group A were statistically higher than those in Group B. There was no significant difference in 1-year overall survival (92.8% vs. 92.0%; P = 0.392) and disease-free survival (88.9% vs. 88.0%; P = 0.357) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of Group A showed that the pathological complete response (40.6% vs. 8.6%; P = 0.002) and major pathological response (65.6% vs. 28.6%; P = 0.002) rates were significantly higher in programmed death ligand-1-positive patients with a combined positive score of ≥ 5. A pathological complete response was achieved in 42.9% patients (3/7) with mismatch repair deficiency. For the two patients confirmed as Epstein-Barr virus-positive, one patient achieved a pathological complete response and the other achieved a major pathological response.

conclusionsThe adoption of SOX combined with a PD-1 inhibitor may improve the pathological response rate of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, especially those with programmed death ligand-1 combined positive score ≥ 5, Epstein-Barr virus-positivity and mismatch repair deficiency. However, further prospective studies are still warranted to confirm the long-term survival benefit.

Indexed as

Epstein-Barr Virus InfectionsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryStomach NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkersBrain NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBiomarkerssintilimabChemotherapyGastric cancerImmune checkpoint inhibitorPathological responsePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37768447
PMCPMC10640399
OpenAlexW4387115621

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.