Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39235478›Full record

ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2024

The short-term efficacy of neoadjuvant SOX versus SOX plus immune checkpoint inhibitor following laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in China.

Hao Cui, Yongpu Yang, Liqiang Song, Zhen Yuan, Linde Sun, Jiajun Du, Yuyuan Lu, Ning Ning, Jianxin Cui, Yan Shi and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Hao CuiSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.
Yongpu YangDepartment of General Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Liqiang SongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, 102206, China.
Zhen YuanSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.
Linde SunDepartment of General Surgery, The Chinese PLA General Hospital First Medical Center, Beijing, 100853, China.
Jiajun DuDepartment of General Surgery, The Chinese PLA General Hospital First Medical Center, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yuyuan LuDepartment of General Surgery, The Chinese PLA General Hospital First Medical Center, Beijing, 100853, China.
Ning NingDepartment of General Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Jianxin CuiDepartment of General Surgery, The Chinese PLA General Hospital First Medical Center, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yan ShiDepartment of General Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China. shiyandoctor@sina.com.
Lin ChenSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China. chenlinbj@sina.com.
Bo WeiSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China. weibo@vip.163.com.

Funding

Beijing Science and Technology Program Z221100007422125National Natural Science Foundation of China 82073192, 82273231, 62133010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the short-term efficacy for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) who accepted laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after neoadjuvant SOX versus SOX plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

methodsLAGC patients who accepted LG after neoadjuvant SOX (SOX-LG, n = 169) and SOX plus ICIs (SOX + ICIs-LG, n = 140) in three medical centers between Jan 2020 and Mar 2024 were analyzed. We compared the tumor regression, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), perioperative safety between two groups, and explored the risk factors of postoperative complications (POCs) for LG after neoadjuvant therapy.

resultsThe baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups (P > 0.05). SOX + ICIs-LG group acquired a higher proportion of objective response (63.6% vs. 46.7%, P = 0.003), major pathological response (43.6% vs. 31.4%, P = 0.001), and pathological complete response (17.9% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in the TRAEs rates, operation time, R0 resection, retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative first flatus, and hospitalized days, overall and severe POCs between two groups (P > 0.05). Patients in the SOX-ICIs-LG group had lower estimated blood loss (EBL) compared with SOX-LG (P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that more EBL (P = 0.003) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) < 40 (P = 0.005) were independent risk factors of POCs for LG after neoadjuvant therapy.

conclusionNeoadjuvant SOX plus ICIs brings better tumor regression and similar TRAEs compared with SOX alone for LAGC. SOX + ICIs-LG is safe and feasible to conduct with less EBL. Surgeons should focus on the perioperative management to control POCs for patients with PNI < 40 and more EBL.

Indexed as

GastrectomyImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsLaparoscopyNeoadjuvant TherapyStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChinaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsGastric cancerImmune checkpoint inhibitorLaparoscopic gastrectomyNeoadjuvant therapyRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID39235478
PMCPMC11377379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.