Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30167905›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2019

Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.

C Mariette, F Carneiro, H I Grabsch, R S van der Post, W Allum, Giovanni de Manzoni, European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 131 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 198 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [Updated German S3 guidelines on esophageal cancer and supplements from a surgical perspective].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Guideline
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Prognostic Significance of Preoperative StagingMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

C MarietteDepartment of Surgery, Hôpital Claude-Huriez, Lille, France.
F CarneiroDepartments of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Faculty of Medicine of Porto University and Institute for Research and Innovation in Health (i3S), Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto (Ipatimup), Porto, Portugal.
H I GrabschDepartment of Pathology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
R S van der PostDepartment of Pathology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
W AllumDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Giovanni de ManzoniGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. giovanni.demanzoni@univr.it.
European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association
Hôpital Claude Huriez · FRRadboud University Medical Center · NLRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsClinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer (GC) are changing, especially in the West with a decreasing incidence of distal, intestinal-type tumours and the corresponding increasing proportion of tumours with Laurén diffuse or WHO poorly cohesive (PC) including signet ring cell (SRC) histology. To accurately assess the behaviour and the prognosis of these GC subtypes, the standardization of pathological definitions is needed.

methodsA multidisciplinary expert team belonging to the European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association (IGCA) identified 11 topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. The topics were debated during a dedicated Workshop held in Verona in March 2017. Then, through a Delphi method, consensus statements for each topic were elaborated.

resultsA consensus was reached on the need to classify gastric carcinoma according to the most recent edition of the WHO classification which is currently WHO 2010. Moreover, to standardize the definition of SRC carcinomas, the proposal that only WHO PC carcinomas with more than 90% poorly cohesive cells having signet ring cell morphology have to be classified as SRC carcinomas was made. All other PC non-SRC types have to be further subdivided into PC carcinomas with SRC component (< 90% but > 10% SRCs) and PC carcinomas not otherwise specified (< 10% SRCs).

conclusionThe reported statements clarify some debated topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. As such, this consensus classification would allow the generation of evidence on biological and prognostic differences between these GC subtypes.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Signet Ring CellHumansStomach NeoplasmsGastric cancerPoorly cohesive sub-typeSignet ring cell histology

Identifiers

PMID30167905
OpenAlexW2888189080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.