ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Three-year interval for endoscopic screening may reduce the mortality in patients with gastric cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction Model for Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Using Korean Public Health Examination Data (2002-2017).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Current Evidence for a Paradigm Shift in Gastric Cancer Prevention From Endoscopic Screening toJournal of gastric cancer · 2022Review
- NF-κB in Gastric Cancer Development and Therapy.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Potential role of mitochondria in gastric cancer detection: Fission and glycolysis.Oncology letters · 2021Review
- Impact of the Interval between Previous Endoscopic Exam and Diagnosis on the Mortality and Treatment Modality of Undifferentiated-Type Gastric Cancer.Journal of gastric cancer · 2021Article
- Knockdown of RIPK2 Inhibits Proliferation and Migration, and Induces ApoptosisFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic screening has been adopted in South Korea for the national screening of gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to assess the effect on overall survival of GC patients and determine the optimal endoscopic screening interval.
methodsThe baseline characteristics and overall survival of GC patients treated at the National Cancer Center, Korea, between 2010 and 2016 were compared between those without a history of endoscopic evaluation (group N) and those in whom the interval between the last endoscopic evaluations and diagnosis of GC was ≤ 1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, or > 4 years (groups 1-5, respectively).
resultsA total of 2362 patients met the criteria for the study (1060 in group N and 1302 in groups 1-5). More patients in groups 1-5 were diagnosed with stage I GC (83.7, 83.7, 71.8, 78.2, and 71.6%, respectively) than in group N (62.4%, P < 0.001) and were treated endoscopically (38.8, 33.8, 24.7, 21.8, and 15.5%, respectively, vs. 13.5%; P < 0.001). Group 2 had less-advanced tumor stages (P = 0.001) and was more likely to have received endoscopic treatments (P = 0.026) than group 3. Hazard ratios for death were significantly lower in groups 2 (0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.64) and 3 (0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.98) than in group N; the decrease was not significant in group 4 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.20-1.20).
conclusionsEndoscopic screening every 3 years may reduce the mortality of GC patients, though screenings at least every 2 years may benefit patients with less-advanced stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30006847What 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.