ArticleUpdates in surgery2018
Siewert III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: does TNM 8th save us?
Article in Updates in surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Cancer Stem Cells in Drug Resistance in Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Siewert III cancers were classified as esophageal cancers by the TNM 7th edition (TNM7), while being defined as gastric cancers by the new TNM 8th edition (TNM8). Aim of this study was to compare previous and present TNM classifications of Siewert III. From 2000 to 2015, 309 patients with Siewert III adenocarcinoma were treated at ten high-volume centers, belonging to the GIRCG (Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer). We retrospectively analyzed overall survival according to TNM classifications: gastric TNM8 was compared with either gastric TNM7 or esophageal TNM7. Median number of lymph nodes harvested was 31 (interquartile range 22-44). Agreement between gastric TNM7 and TNM8 was very good (weighted kappa 92.3%, IC 95% 90.3-94.1%). Accordingly, stage migration was observed in 54 of 309 patients (17.5%), with 12 patients upstaged (3.9%) and 42 downstaged (13.6%). Cox models including either gastric TNM7 or TNM8 achieved similar goodness-of-fit and c-index. Differences were much larger, when shifting from esophageal TNM7 to gastric TNM8: the agreement was much lower (weighted kappa 69.1%, 65.2-73.2%), with 196 of 309 patients (63.4%) downstaging. The corresponding Cox model presented the lowest goodness-of-fit and discrimination ability. Gastric TNM7 and TNM8 were largely superimposable, so that stage migration was minor and prognostic significance was similar. At variance, stage migration was substantial when shifting from esophageal TNM7 to TNM8. Moreover, survival models with esophageal TNM7 presented the worst goodness-of-fit and the lowest discrimination ability. This further supports placing Siewert III among gastric cancers, as done in TNM8.
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.