ArticleBMC surgery2014
Long term follow up and retrospective study on 533 gastric cancer cases.
Article in BMC surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and verification of prediction model of occult peritoneal metastasis in advanced gastric cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Different Number of XELOX or SOX Chemotherapy Cycles After D2 Resection for Stage III Gastric Cancer.Journal of gastric cancer · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of a Radiomics Model Based onFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Patterns of recurrence after curative D2 resection for gastric cancer: Implications for postoperative radiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Issues on peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer: an update.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Review
- Prognostic analysis of stage III gastric cancer after curative surgery according to the newest TNM classification.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Article
- Survival outcomes after D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy with R0 resection in stage II-III gastric cancer: Longitudinal follow-up in a single center.Turkish journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Identification and validation of a prognostic 9-genes expression signature for gastric cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Should every region use the same gastric cancer scanning and treatment approaches? let's reconsider: a northeastern turkey example.BMC gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Regional but fatal: Intraperitoneal metastasis in gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in China and the outcome of GC patients is poor. The aim of the research is to study the prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who had curative intent or palliative resection, completed clinical database and follow-up.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 533 GC patients from three tertiary referral teaching hospitals from January 2004 to December 2010 who had curative intent or palliative resection, complete clinical database and follow-up information. The GC-specific overall survival (OS) status was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate analysis was conducted to identify possible factors for survival. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model and a forward regression procedure was conducted to define independent prognostic factors.
resultsBy the last follow-up, the median follow-up time of 533 GC patients was 38.6 mo (range 6.9-100.9 mo), and the median GC-specific OS was 25.3 mo (95% CI: 23.1-27.4 mo). The estimated 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year GC-specific OS rates were 78.4%, 61.4%, 53.3% and 48.4%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified the following prognostic factors: hospital, age, gender, cancer site, surgery type, resection type, other organ resection, HIPEC, LN status, tumor invasion, distant metastases, TNM stage, postoperative SAE, systemic chemotherapy and IP chemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, seven factors were identified as independent prognostic factors for long term survival, including resection type, HIPEC, LN status, tumor invasion, distant metastases, postoperative SAE and systemic chemotherapy.
conclusionsResection type, HIPEC, postoperative SAE and systemic chemotherapy are four independent prognostic factors that could be intervened for GC patients for improving survival.
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.