ArticleHeliyon2020
Prognostic significance of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma in Tunisian patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of poorly cohesive cell subtype of gastric cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the incidence of gastric cancer has decreased worldwide in recent decades, the incidence of poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) is rising. The prognostic significance of gastric PCC remains a subject of debate.
objectiveTo analyze the prognosis of gastric PCC in a Tunisian cohort.
methodsA total of 122 gastric adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative gastrectomy from 2001 to 2014 at Habib Thameur hospital in Tunis, Tunisia were included. The clinicopathological parameters and prognosis of PCC were analyzed in comparison with non PCC (NPCC).
resultsSixty one patients (50%) presented PCC. Patients were younger in PCC group (p = 0,001). There was no difference in sex distribution between the two groups. PCC was more likely to be stage T4 (55.7% vs 34.4%; p = 0.033), N3 (67.8% vs 30%; p < 0.001) and have a higher metastatic lymph node ratio (p < 0.001). Hepatic metastases were more frequent in NPCC group (p = 0.031) whereas peritoneal carcinomatosis was more common in PCC group (p = 0.004). Perineural invasion was more frequent in PCC group (p = 0.001). Resection margins were more often positive in PCC group (31.1% vs 9.8%; p = 0.004). There was no difference in recurrence rate between the 2 groups (p = 0.348). The 5-year survival was similar in the NPCC and PCC (respectively 43% vs 23 %; p = 0.247). Survival rates were also comparable in early stage (100% vs 80% respectively for PCC and NPCC; p = 0.527) as well as for advanced stage (16% vs 35% respectively for PCC and NPCC; p = 0.538). PCC was not a prognostic factor for survival. Interestingly, advanced age, adjacent structures invasion, positive resection margins were specific prognostic factors for PCC.
conclusionIn our study PCC was not a prognostic factor for survival. Advanced age, adjacent structures invasion and positive resection margins were specific prognostic features for this histological subtype.
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.