SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Proximal vs. total gastrectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal extent of gastrectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer (PAGC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains controversial. While total gastrectomy (TG) has traditionally been considered oncological safer, proximal gastrectomy (PG) offers potential functional advantages. This meta-analysis aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between PG and TG after NAC. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing PG and TG in PAGC patients treated with NAC. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and postoperative complications. Supplementary TG-cohort data were extracted to assess distal lymph node metastasis patterns. Hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models as appropriate. Publication bias and result robustness were assessed through funnel plots, Galbraith plots, L'Abbé plots, and sensitivity analyses. Results: Four propensity score-matched (PSM) comparative studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, comprising 284 patients undergoing PG and 305 patients undergoing TG after NAC. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. PG was associated with shorter operative time (MD -21.4 min, 95% CI -23.7 to -19.1) but slightly greater blood loss (MD 8.9 mL, 95% CI 4.9-12.8). Fewer lymph nodes were retrieved with PG (MD -3.9, 95% CI -4.5 to -3.3), but the number of metastatic nodes was similar (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.09). Supplementary TG-cohort analysis showed low metastasis rates in distal lymph node stations (#4: 12.7%, #5: 4.8%, #6: 5.1%, and #12: 2.2%). Overall postoperative complications did not differ between PG and TG (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71-1.54), nor did Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II complications (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.69-1.71). No significant differences were observed in 5-year OS (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.83-1.84) or RFS (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.94-1.95). Sensitivity analyses supported the stability of the main pooled estimates. Conclusions: In patients with PAGC following NAC, PG provides comparable long-term oncological outcomes to TG without increasing postoperative morbidity or compromising adjuvant treatment delivery. PG represents a feasible oncological alternative to TG in appropriately selected patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261388093.
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.