Analysis of Patient Outcomes following Curative R0 Multiorgan Resections for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This systematic review examines the efficacy of multiorgan resection (MOR) in treating locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC), focusing on survival outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of studies in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up to November 2023, based on the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria focused on clinical trials, observational studies, case–control studies, and qualitative research, involving patients of any age and gender diagnosed with LAGC undergoing MOR aimed at R0 resection, with secondary outcomes focusing on survival rates, postoperative outcomes, and the effects of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies. Exclusion criteria ruled out non-human studies, research not specifically focused on LAGC patients undergoing MOR, and studies lacking clear, quantifiable outcomes. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The final analysis included twenty studies, involving a total of 2489 patients across a time span from 2001 to 2023. Results highlighted a significant variation in median survival times ranging from 10 to 27 months and R0 resection rates from 32.1% to 94.3%. Survival rates one-year post-R0 resection varied between 46.7% and 84.8%, with an adjusted weighted mean of 66.95%. Key predictors of reduced survival included esophageal invasion and peritoneal dissemination, the presence of more than six lymph nodes, and tumor sizes over 10 cm. Nevertheless, the meta-analysis revealed a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), indicating substantial variability across studies, that might be caused by differences in surgical techniques, patient demographics, and treatment settings which influence survival outcomes. Results: The review underlines the important role of achieving R0 resection status in improving survival outcomes, despite the high risks associated with MOR. Variability across studies suggests that local practice patterns and patient demographics significantly influence results. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the need for aggressive surgical strategies to improve survival in LAGC treatment, highlighting the importance of achieving curative resection despite inherent challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".