ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive gastrectomy for older patients with gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications in esophageal cancer: focus on inflammatory markers.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of inflammatory markers and different treatment regimens in neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of neoadjuvant immunotherapy on minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) in older patients with gastric cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, and efficacy of MIG for older patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy (NICT).
methodsThe clinical data of 726 older patients aged over 65 years who underwent upfront MIG or MIG after NICT in the Department of General Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital First Medical Center between Jan 2020 and Nov 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis at a ratio of 1:2 was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables, short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe baseline characteristics were comparable between 61 patients in the NICT-MIG group and 114 patients in the MIG group after PSM (P > 0.05). The major pathological response (MPR) rate and pathological complete response (pCR) rate were 44.2% and 21.3%, respectively, in the NICT-MIG group. Patients in the NICT-MIG group had longer operation times (P = 0.005) and postoperative days (P = 0.030) than those in the MIG group. No significant differences were found in intraoperative bleeding, number of retrieved lymph nodes, first flatus day, R0 resection rate, overall postoperative complication (POC) morbidity, severe POC morbidity, 2-year overall, and recurrence-free survival between the MIG and NICT-MIG groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that an estimated blood loss > 200 mL (P = 0.010) and a lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) ≤ 3.25 (P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for POCs after MIG in older patients.
conclusionThe safety, and efficacy of NICT-MIG were comparable to those of upfront MIG in older patients with GC. Patients with an estimated blood loss > 200 mL or an LMR ≤ 3.25 should be carefully evaluated for an increased risk of POCs in older patients who undergo MIG.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Number: ChiCTR2400086827).
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.