Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29302373›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2017

Risk Factors of Microscopic Invasion in Early Gastric Cancer.

Jong-Ho Choi, Yun-Suhk Suh, Shin-Hoo Park, Seong-Ho Kong, Hyuk-Joon Lee, Woo Ho Kim, Han-Kwang Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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 · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2019
    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

7 authors.

Jong-Ho ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6963-7075
Yun-Suhk SuhDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3319-8482
Shin-Hoo ParkDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9767-6100
Seong-Ho KongDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3929-796X
Hyuk-Joon LeeDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7624-2020
Woo Ho KimDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1016
Han-Kwang YangDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3495-3048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Risk factorsStomach neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID29302373
PMCPMC5746654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.