Trial reportPloS one2017
Evaluations of primary lesions by endoscopy clearly distinguishes prognosis in patients with gastric cancer who receive chemotherapy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of preoperative endoscopy for predicting treatment response and prognosis in patients with gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Imaging strategies in the management of gastric cancer: current role and future potential of MRI.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy may improve outcomes in gastric cancer (GC), especially for the patients with advanced stage. To explore useful predictive factor for GC performing chemotherapy, we compared the tumor responses assessed using computed tomography (CT) with endoscopy based criteria.
methods192 GC patients performing chemotherapy were retrospectively studied. CT based response assessment was performed after 2 courses of treatment. Endoscopic evaluation according to The Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma was also performed at same period. Data were correlated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsMajority of the cases (n = 178, 93%) received S-1 based chemotherapy as the first line treatment. 55 (29%) and 91 (47%) cases were considered to be CT and endoscopic responders. Endoscopic responder was more clearly associated with better OS and PFS compared to CT based responder by the log-rank test (P<0.0001 vs. 0.01 and P<0.0001 vs. 0.008, respectively). The association was more striking among patients performing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P<0.0001 vs. 0.15 and P<0.0001 vs. 0.1, respectively). Multivariate survival analysis using Cox's regression model revealed that endoscopic non-responder was the independent predictive factor, being more strongly associated with worse OS when compared to CT non-responder (hazard ratio: 4.60 vs. 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 2.83-7.49 vs.1.08-2.89, P<0.0001 vs. 0.02). More advanced T, N stage and cases who had peritoneal dissemination were significantly associated with endoscopic non-responder (all P values <0.01).
conclusionEndoscopy based evaluation of primary lesions are clearly associated with prognosis in patients with GC who perform chemotherapy.
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.