FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4386306557> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4386306557 abstract "Abstract Background There is still no definite evidence regarding the prognostic effect of #104 prophylactic dissection. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent esophagectomy regarding the prognostic effect of #104 prophylactic dissection by propensity score matching analysis. Between 2012/1 and 2020/12, 302 patients with esophageal malignant tumors underwent radical subtotal esophagectomy via the right thoracic approach at our hospital. The histological types were limited to squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma, and clinical (c)T4b (TNM 7th edition), cM1, cervical esophageal cancer, salvage surgery cases, R1/2 cases, and cases with synchronous advanced multiple cancers were excluded. This resulted in the analysis of the 220 cases comparing between the 3-filed and 2-filed dissection groups. R version 4.1.2 was used for statistical analysis. The predicted probability of #104 dissection was calculated by logistic regression model. Propensity score matching was performed to match patients between 2 groups according to age, tumor location, preoperative treatment, postoperative pneumonia, pathological (p)T factor, and pN factor by nearest neighbor method within caliper. P &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Both DSS and DFS were significantly better in the 2-filed dissection group. Baseline characteristics showed that the 3-filed dissection group had significantly more patients of tumor location Mt and Ut, more squamous cell carcinoma as the histologic type, and more cases with preoperative treatment. In the 3-field dissection group, operative time was significantly longer and the postoperative complications was increased such as recurrent nerve palsy and cervical lymphatic leakage. Pathologic results showed higher grades of pT and pN. Four patients in the 3-field dissection group had p104 metastasis, and only 1 of these survived without recurrence. On the other hand, 5 patients of the 2-field dissection group had #104 as the first recurrence site, and 3 of these had simultaneous distant metastasis. There was no significant difference in DSS and DFS between groups after propensity score matching (DSS p = 0.852, DFS p = 0.768). Conclusions This retrospective study did not confirm a prognostic benefit of prophylactic dissection of the #104 region. This will be elucidated by results of the ongoing RCT, JCOG2013 trial." @default.
• W4386306557 created "2023-09-01" @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5003293315 @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5022531581 @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5024741574 @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5028493586 @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5040903044 @default.
• W4386306557 creator A5057319049 @default.
• W4386306557 date "2023-08-30" @default.
• W4386306557 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4386306557 title "169. PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT ON PROGNOSIS OF PROPHYLACTIC NECK DISSECTION FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER" @default.
• W4386306557 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doad052.039" @default.
• W4386306557 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4386306557 type Work @default.
• W4386306557 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4386306557 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5003293315 @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5022531581 @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5024741574 @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5028493586 @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5040903044 @default.
• W4386306557 hasAuthorship W4386306557A5057319049 @default.
• W4386306557 hasBestOaLocation W43863065571 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C17923572 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C2775862295 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C2777297899 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C2778474501 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C2779742542 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C2781182431 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C121608353 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C126322002 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C126838900 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C141071460 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C17923572 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C2775862295 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C2777297899 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C2778474501 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C2779742542 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C2781182431 @default.
• W4386306557 hasConceptScore W4386306557C71924100 @default.
• W4386306557 hasIssue "Supplement_2" @default.
• W4386306557 hasLocation W43863065571 @default.
• W4386306557 hasOpenAccess W4386306557 @default.
• W4386306557 hasPrimaryLocation W43863065571 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2008446981 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2084845148 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2275543989 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2756462108 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2802923097 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W2905125288 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W4206343559 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W4285503836 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W4303423690 @default.
• W4386306557 hasRelatedWork W4386306557 @default.
• W4386306557 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W4386306557 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4386306557 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4386306557 workType "article" @default.