ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2017
Risk Factors of Microscopic Invasion in Early Gastric Cancer.
Article in Journal of gastric cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adequate gross resection margin length ensuring pathologically complete resection in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
- Clinical Significance of Intra-operative Gastroscopy for Tumor Localization in Totally Laparoscopic Partial Gastrectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- The pattern of postoperative quality of life following minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective cohort from Korean multicenter robotic gastrectomy trial.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Metastatic patterns and surgical methods for lymph nodes No. 5 and No. 6 in proximal gastric cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of microscopic invasion to determine the adequate resection margin in early gastric cancer (EGC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review was performed that included patients who underwent gastrectomy for clinical early gastric cancer (cEGC) at Seoul National University Hospital between January 2007 and December 2010. After subtracting the microscopic resection margin from the gross resection margin for each proximal or distal resection margin, microscopic invasion was represented by the larger value. Microscopic invasion and its risk factors were analyzed according to the clinicopathologic characteristics.
resultsIn total, 861 patients were enrolled in the study. Microscopic invasion of cEGC was 6.0±12.8 mm, and the proportion of patients with microscopic invasion ≥0 mm was 78.4%. In the risk group, tumor location, pT stage, and differentiation did not significantly discriminate the presence of microscopic invasion. The microscopic invasion of EGC-IIb was 13.9±16.8 mm, which was significantly greater than that of EGC-I. No linear correlation was observed between the overall tumor size and microscopic invasion (R=0.030). The independent risk factors for microscopic invasion ≥20 mm were EGC-IIb vs. EGC-I/IIa/IIc/III (odds ratio [OR], 3.103; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.533-6.282; P=0.002) and male vs. female sex (OR, 1.655; 95% CI, 1.012-2.705; P=0.045).
conclusionsMale sex and EGC-IIb were independent risk factors for microscopic invasion ≥20 mm. Examination of intraoperative frozen sections is highly recommended to avoid resection margin involvement, especially in cases of EGC-IIb.
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.