ArticleMedicine2020
Nodes staging score to quantify lymph nodes for examination in gastric cancer.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing lymph node dissection for accurate nodal staging in early-stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter study.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Defining Optimal Lymph Node Yield in Gastrectomy: A Real-World Cohort Analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for lymph node metastasis and prognosis study in patients with early gastric cancer: A SEER data-based study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Development and validation of nodal staging score in pN0 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A population study from the SEER database and a single-institution cohort.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- Pathologic node-negative lung cancer: Adequacy of lymph node yield and a tool to assess the risk of occult nodal disease.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lymph nodal invasion diagnosis is critical for therapeutic-decision and follows up in gastric cancer. However, the number of nodes to be examined for nodal invasion diagnosis is still under controversy, and the model for quantifying risk of missing positive node is currently not reported yet. We analyzed the nodal invasion status of 13,857 gastric cancer samples with records of primary tumor stage, the number of examined and positive lymph nodes in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, fitting a beta-binomial model. The nodes need to be examined with different primary tumor stage were determined based on the model. Overall, examining 11 lymph nodes reduces the probability of missing positive nodes to <10%, and the currently median nodes dissected is adequate (12 nodes). While the number of nodes demands to be dissected for T1, T2, T3, and T4 subgroups are 6, 19, 40, and 66, respectively. The currently implemented median value for these samples was 12, 12, 13, and 16, separately. It implies that the number of nodes to be examined is sufficient for early gastric cancer (T1), but it is inadequate for middle and advanced gastric cancer (T2-T3). The clinical significance of nodal staging score was validated with survival information. In summary, we first quantified the lymph nodes to be examined during surgery using a beta-binomial model, and validated with survival information.
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.