Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26260874›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2016

Outcome of gastric cancer in the elderly: a population-based evaluation of the Munich Cancer Registry.

Anne Schlesinger-Raab, André L Mihaljevic, Silvia Egert, Rebecca Emeny, Karl-Walter Jauch, Jörg Kleeff, Alexander Novotny, Natascha C Nüssler, Miriam Rottmann, Wolfgang Schepp and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. BioMed research international · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

15 authors.

Anne Schlesinger-RaabMunich Cancer Registry (MCR), Munich Tumour Centre (TZM), Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. schlesi@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.
André L MihaljevicDepartment of Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Silvia EgertMünchner Studienzentrum (MSZ), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Rebecca EmenyMunich Cancer Registry (MCR), Munich Tumour Centre (TZM), Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Karl-Walter JauchKlinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Jörg KleeffDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Alexander NovotnyDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Natascha C NüsslerDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum Neuperlach, Städtisches Klinikum München, Munich, Germany.
Miriam RottmannMunich Cancer Registry (MCR), Munich Tumour Centre (TZM), Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang ScheppDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, Klinikum Bogenhausen, Städtisches Klinikum München, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang SchmittDepartment of Gastroenterology, Klinikum Neuperlach, Städtisches Klinikum München, Munich, Germany.
Gabriele Schubert-FritschleMunich Cancer Registry (MCR), Munich Tumour Centre (TZM), Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Bernhard WeberDepartment of Internal Medicine, Klinik Bad Trissl, Oberaudorf, Germany.
Christoph SchuhmacherMedical Faculty, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Jutta EngelMunich Cancer Registry (MCR), Munich Tumour Centre (TZM), Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastric cancer accounts for 5 % of cancer deaths. Proportions of older stomach cancer patients are increasing. Despite the still poor prognosis, standardised treatment has achieved improvements; nonetheless it is questionable whether all age groups have benefitted. Age and outcome need to be examined in a population-based setting.

methodsAnalyses included Munich Cancer Registry (MCR) data from 8601 invasive gastric cancer patients, diagnosed between 1998 and 2012. Tumour and therapy characteristics and outcome were analysed by two age groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years). Survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and relative survival was computed as an estimation for cancer-specific survival. Additional landmark analyses were conducted by calculating conditional survival of patients who survived more than 6 months.

resultsFifty-nine per cent of the cohort were ≥70 years old. These patients had tumours with a slightly better prognosis and were treated with less radical surgery and adjuvant therapy than younger patients. The 5-year relative survival was 40 % for the youngest (<50 years) and 23 % for the oldest patients (≥80 years). Survival differences were diminished or eliminated after landmark analyses: The 5-year relative survival in age groups 50-59, 60-69 and 70-79 years was comparable (between 48 and 49.6 %) and slightly worse in the youngest and oldest (45 %), which may be explained by more aggressive tumours and effects of cellular senescence, respectively.

conclusionThe treatment and care of elderly gastric cancer patients in the MCR catchment area seems appropriate: if a patient's general condition allows oncologic resection and chemotherapy, it is conducted and the result is comparable between age groups.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Signet Ring CellCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastrectomyGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisCancer registryComparative effectiveness researchElderlyGastric cancerStomach cancer

Identifiers

PMID26260874

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.