Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26097575›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2015

Vascular invasion as an independent predictor of poor prognosis in nonmetastatic gastric cancer after curative resection.

Peng Li, Yi-Hong Ling, Chong-Mei Zhu, Wan-Ming Hu, Xin-Ke Zhang, Rong-Zhen Luo, Jie-Hua He, Jing-Ping Yun, Yuan-Fang Li, Mu-Yan Cai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Usefulness of Elastin Staining to Detect Vascular Invasion in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Oncotarget · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Peng LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Yi-Hong LingState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Chong-Mei ZhuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Wan-Ming HuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Xin-Ke ZhangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Rong-Zhen LuoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Jie-Hua HeState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Jing-Ping YunState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Yuan-Fang LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Gastric & pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.
Mu-Yan CaiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China ; Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prognostic significance of vascular invasion (VI) in nonmetastatic gastric cancer (GC) remains a matter of controversy. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of VI on survival in this group of GC patients. We enrolled 361 GC patients without metastasis who underwent curative gastrectomy between 1996 and 2009 in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. A retrospective analysis of the clinicopathological data was performed, focusing on the impact of VI detected by routine H&E staining on disease-free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The presence of VI was detected in 13.9% of our cohort. The VI status was significantly correlated with the tumor size, infiltration depth, and TNM stage (P < 0.05). Patients with VI showed significantly lower DFS and CSS compared with patients without VI (P < 0.0001 for both). The subgroup analysis indicated that the presence of VI was a negative predictor of DFS in all TNM stages and a predictor of lower CSS only in stage I (P < 0.05 for all). A multivariate Cox proportional analysis identified VI as an independent predictor of CSS (P = 0.022). The presence of VI is a risk factor for recurrence and an independent predictor of poor survival in nonmetastatic GC after curative resection. The VI status should be considered to stratify with this group of GC patients for adjuvant treatment and more effective follow-up protocol.

Indexed as

GastrectomyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingNeovascularization, PathologicPrognosisRetrospective StudiesStomachStomach NeoplasmsGastric cancernonmetastaticprognosisvascular invasion

Identifiers

PMID26097575
PMCPMC4466962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.