Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32670421›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2020

Observational cohort study of clinical outcome in Epstein-Barr virus associated gastric cancer patients.

Miao-Zhen Qiu, Cai-Yun He, Da-Jun Yang, Da-Lei Zhou, Bai-Wei Zhao, Xiao-Jian Wang, Li-Qiong Yang, Shi-Xun Lu, Feng-Hua Wang, Rui-Hua Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. T-betNature communications · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Therapeutic opportunities in EBV-positive gastric cancer subtypes.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Miao-Zhen QiuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Cai-Yun HeDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Da-Jun YangDepartment of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Da-Lei ZhouDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Bai-Wei ZhaoDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Xiao-Jian WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Li-Qiong YangDepartment of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Shi-Xun LuDepartment of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Feng-Hua WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Rui-Hua XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpstein-Barr virus-associated gastric cancer (EBVaGC) has unique clinicopathologic features and our present understanding of its treatment outcome is limited. Here, we investigated the clinical outcomes of resectable and metastatic EBVaGC cases with regards to their respective treatment.

methodsWe retrieved the data of EBVaGC patients treated at our center from October 2014 to June 2019. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) for stage I-III patients, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) for stage IV patients.

resultsPatients classified as stage I-III accounted for 83.7% of the total 197 cases analyzed. Two patients had mismatched repair-deficiency. The 5-year OS rate of the entire cohort was 63.51% [95% (confidence interval (CI): 52.31-72.76%]. Tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage and gastric stump cancer were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS. The 3- and 5-year DFS rate for stage I-III patients were 83.72% (95% CI: 75.86-89.19%) and 73.83% (95% CI: 60.39-83.32%), respectively. TNM stage III, neural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and baseline plasma EBV-DNA positive were correlated with shorter DFS. The ORR and disease control rate (DCR) for metastatic EBVaGC patients to first-line therapy were 29.0% and 90.3% (median PFS: 9.8 months), respectively, and to second-line therapy were 25.0% and 75.0%, respectively. Seven patients received anti-PD1 therapy and had an ORR of 28.5% and a median PFS of 2.8 months.

conclusionsEBVaGC patients have few metastases, long DFS, and high DCR. TNM stage and gastric stump cancer were independent prognostic factors for OS.

Indexed as

disease-free survival (DFS)Epstein–Barr virusgastric cancerprognosisprogression-free survival (PFS)response rate (RR)

Identifiers

PMID32670421
PMCPMC7338646
OpenAlexW3039905269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.