Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22618718›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2012

The New American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer staging system for adenocarcinoma of the stomach: increased complexity without clear improvement in predictive accuracy.

Johan L Dikken, Cornelis J H van de Velde, Mithat Gönen, Marcel Verheij, Murray F Brennan, Daniel G Coit

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of the seventh AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Discordance of Clinical and Pathologic Staging in Locally Advanced Gastric Adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Simplified Two-Step Technique for Extended Lymphadenectomy During Resection of Gastroesophageal Malignancy: Early Results Compared to En Bloc Dissection.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. The prognosis role of AJCC/UICC 8American journal of translational research · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Johan L DikkenDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. jdikken@gmail.com
Cornelis J H van de Velde
Mithat Gönen
Marcel Verheij
Murray F Brennan
Daniel G Coit
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the changes in the 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for stomach cancer compared to the 6th edition; to compare the predictive accuracy of the two staging systems.

methodsIn a combined database containing 2,196 patients who underwent an R0 resection for gastric adenocarcinoma, differences between the two staging systems were evaluated and stage-specific survival estimates compared. Concordance probability and Brier scores were estimated for both systems to examine the predictive accuracy.

resultsNodal status cutoff values were changed, leading to a more even distribution for the redefined N1, N2, and N3 group. AJCC 6th edition stage II reflected a highly heterogeneous population, which is now adequately subdivided in the AJCC 7th edition into stages IIA, IIB, and IIIA. The predictive accuracy of N classification improved significantly as measured by concordance. Despite increased complexity, the predictive accuracy of AJCC 7th stage grouping was significantly worse than that of the AJCC 6th edition. DISCUSSION: The increased complexity of the 7th edition staging system is accompanied by improvements in the predictive value of nodal staging as compared to the 6th edition, but it was no better in overall stage-specific predictive accuracy. Future refinements of the tumor, node, metastasis staging system should consider whether increased complexity is balanced by improved prognostic accuracy.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22618718
PMCPMC3404274
OpenAlexW2040762617

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.