Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39372418›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024

Tumor-associated lymphatic vessel density is a reliable biomarker for prognosis of esophageal cancer after radical resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Jin Li, Qing-Bo Wang, Yu-Bo Liang, Xing-Ming Chen, Wan-Ling Luo, Yu-Kai Li, Xiong Chen, Qi-Yu Lu, Yang Ke

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. CD172aBMC gastroenterology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Jin Li *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Qing-Bo Wang *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Yu-Bo Liang *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Xing-Ming Chen *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Wan-Ling Luo *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Yu-Kai Li *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Xiong ChenDepartment of Oncology, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Qi-Yu LuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Yang KeDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To explore whether tumor-associated lymphatic vessel density (LVD) could be a biomarker for the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer after radical resection. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, Wanfang Data, and Cochrane Library from the inception of databases until March 19, 2024. The selected studies investigated overall survival (OS) and/or recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with esophageal cancer with different levels of LVD after radical resection. The OS and RFS data were pooled as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidential interval (CI). Furthermore, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CI were aggregated to evaluate the correlation between LVD and clinicopathological features. Results: A total of 10 retrospective studies of 1,201 patients were finally included for the meta-analysis. Patients with esophageal cancer with a high level of LVD exhibited worse OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.31) and RFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.26) than those with a low level of LVD. Subgroup analysis of different pathological subtypes revealed that patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma with a high level of LVD had significantly worse RFS (HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.61 to 5.02) than those with a low level of LVD; while patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with a high level of LVD had similar OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.47) and RFS (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.48) to those with a low level of LVD. Furthermore, tumors with lymph node metastasis had significantly higher levels of LVD than those without lymph node metastasis (SMD = 1.11, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.67). Tumors at the stages III-IV had significantly higher levels of LVD than those at the stages I-II (SMD = 1.62, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.34). Conclusion: A high level of LVD in tumor was associated with worse survival of patients with esophageal cancer after radical resection, especially in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Tumor-associated LVD is a new parameter that should be measured in postoperative pathology for predicting the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024553766.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsLymphatic VesselsEsophagectomyHumansLymphatic MetastasisPrognosisesophageal cancerlymphangiogenesislymphatic vessel densitymeta-analysisoverall survivalprognosisradical resectionrecurrence-free survival

Identifiers

PMID39372418
PMCPMC11449706

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.