Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30214731›Full record

ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2018

Superiority of the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for predicting overall survival in gastric cancer: Comparative analysis of the 7th and 8th editions in a monoinstitutional cohort.

Hao Wang, Weihong Guo, Yanfeng Hu, Tingyu Mou, Liying Zhao, Hao Chen, Tian Lin, Tuanjie Li, Jiang Yu, Hao Liu and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prognostic Implications of Novel Gene Signatures in Gastric Cancer Microenvironment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Hao WangDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Weihong GuoDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Yanfeng HuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Tingyu MouDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Liying ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Hao ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Tian LinDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Tuanjie LiDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Jiang YuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Hao LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.
Guoxin LiDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was performed to evaluate the predictive capacity of the 8th edition vs. the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system for overall survival (OS) of patients with gastric cancer. Data of eligible patients with gastric cancer in our institution between June 2004 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 1,506 patients were followed up to July 2016, among whom 1,484 patients with complete stage information were included in the TNM staging analysis. A total of 339 (22.8%) patients presented stage migration, including 325 (21.9%) migrating to a lower tier and 14 (0.9%) to a higher tier. All patients with stage migration to a lower tier were in stage III, including 177 (54.5%) patients migrating from stage IIIB to IIIA, and 148 (45.5%) from stage IIIC to IIIB. Patients migrating from IIIB to IIIA yielded a median OS time and 5-year OS rate closer to those remaining in stage IIIA. Similarly, patients migrating from IIIC to IIIB yielded a median OS time and 5-year OS rate closer to those remaining in stage IIIB. The 7th edition of the staging system exhibited prognostic discrepancy in discriminating stage IIIA from IIIB on survival curves, which was improved in the 8th edition. The 8th edition had a better predictive capability of survival, as evidenced by a smaller value of -2log likelihood in the Cox proportional regression model (7th edition 4738.859 vs. 8th edition 4736.683). Therefore, the present study demonstrated that the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system is superior to the 7th edition in predicting the OS of patients with gastric cancer.

Indexed as

8th editionAmerican Joint Committee on Cancergastric cancersurvivaltumor-node-metastasis classification

Identifiers

PMID30214731
PMCPMC6125696

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.