Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940927›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2023

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comprehensive contrastive analysis with propensity score matching.

Chenggang Zhang, Peng Zhang, Jiaxian Yu, Qi Jiang, Qian Shen, Gan Mao, Abu Bakarr Kargbo, Weizhen Liu, Xiangyu Zeng, Yuping Yin and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Chenggang Zhang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Peng Zhang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Jiaxian YuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Qi JiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Qian ShenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Gan MaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Abu Bakarr KargboDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Weizhen LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Xiangyu ZengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Yuping Yin *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China. yinyuping2017@hust.edu.cn.
Kaixiong Tao *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China. kaixiongtao@hust.edu.cn.
Union Hospital · CNHuazhong University of Science and Technology · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81702386National Natural Science Foundation of China 82072736Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province 2021CFB566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is increasingly applied in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC). However, there is no study to comprehensively evaluate the clinicopathological, prognostic, and laboratory data such as nutrition, immune, inflammation-associated indexes, and tumor markers between LG and open gastrectomy (OG) for LAGC following NC.

methodsThe clinicopathological, prognostic, and laboratory data of LAGC patients with clinical stage of cT2-4aN1-3M0 who underwent gastrectomy after NC were retrospectively collected. The effects of LG and OG were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

resultsThis study enrolled 148 cases, of which 110 cases were included after PSM. The LG group had a shorter length of incision (P < 0.001) and was superior to OG group in terms of blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative first flatus time (P < 0.001), and postoperative first liquid diet time (P = 0.004). No significant difference was found in postoperative complications (P = 0.482). Laboratory results showed that LG group had less reduced red blood cells (P = 0.039), hemoglobin (P = 0.018), prealbumin (P = 0.010) in 3 days after surgery, and less reduced albumin in 1 day (P = 0.029), 3 days (P = 0.015), and 7 days (P = 0.035) after surgery than the OG group. The systemic immune-inflammation index and systemic inflammatory response index were not significantly different between the two groups. As for oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in postoperative tumor markers of CEA (P = 0.791), CA199 (P = 0.499), and CA724 (P = 0.378). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates (P = 0.446) were 46.9% and 43.3% in the LG and OG groups, with the 5-year overall survival rates (P = 0.742) being 46.7% and 52.1%, respectively; the differences were not statistically significant. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that tumor size ≥ 4 cm (P = 0.021) and the absence of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.012) were independent risk factors for overall survival.

conclusionsLG has faster gastrointestinal recovery, better postoperative nutritional status, and comparable oncological outcomes than OG, which can serve as an alternative surgical method for LAGC patients after NC.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyStomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorGastrectomyHumansInflammationLength of StayNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBiomarkers, TumorGastric cancerLaparoscopic surgeryNeoadjuvant chemotherapyOpen surgerySurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID37940927
PMCPMC10633974
OpenAlexW4388537619

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.