ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Clinicopathologic features of remnant gastric cancer over time following distal gastrectomy.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Does gastric stump cancer really differ from primary proximal gastric cancer? A multicentre, propensity score matching-used, retrospective cohort study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- The value of lymph nodes ratios in the prognosis of resectable remnant gastric cancer through the retrospective propensity score matching analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- T stage and venous invasion are crucial prognostic factors for long-term survival of patients with remnant gastric cancer: a cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Clinicopathologic features of remnant gastric cancer after curative distal gastrectomy according to previous reconstruction method: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate remnant gastric cancer (RGC) at various times after gastrectomy, and lay a foundation for the management of RGC.
methodsSixty-five patients with RGC > 2 years and < 10 years after gastrectomy (RGC I) and forty-nine with RGC > 10 years after gastrectomy (RGC II) who underwent curative surgery were enrolled in the study. The clinicopathologic factors, surgical outcomes, and prognosis were compared between RGC I and RGC II.
resultsThere was no significant difference in surgical outcomes between RGC I and RGC II. For patients reconstructed with Billroth II, significantly more patients were RGC II compared with RGC (71.9% vs 21.2%, P < 0.001), and more RGC II patients had anastomotic site locations compared to RGC I (31.0% vs 56.3%, P = 0.038). The five-year survival rates for the patients with RGC I and RGC II were 37.6% and 47.9%, respectively, but no significant difference was observed. Borrmann type and tumor stage were confirmed to be independent prognostic factors in both groups.
conclusionRGC II is located on the anastomotic site in higher frequency and more cases develop after Billroth II reconstruction than RGC I.
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.