Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32892273›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020

Accurate Risk Stratification of Patients with Node-Positive Gastric Cancer by Lymph Node Ratio.

Shunsuke Nakamura, Mitsuro Kanda, Seiji Ito, Yoshinari Mochizuki, Hitoshi Teramoto, Kiyoshi Ishigure, Toshifumi Murai, Takahiro Asada, Akiharu Ishiyama, Hidenobu Matsushita and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Shunsuke NakamuraDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Mitsuro KandaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan. m-kanda@med.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
Seiji ItoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya, Japan.
Yoshinari MochizukiDepartment of Surgery, Komaki Municipal Hospital, Komaki, Japan.
Hitoshi TeramotoDepartment of Surgery, Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital, Mie, Japan.
Kiyoshi IshigureDepartment of Surgery, Konan Kosei Hospital, Konan, Japan.
Toshifumi MuraiDepartment of Surgery, Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan.
Takahiro AsadaDepartment of Surgery, Gifu Prefectural Tajimi Hospital, Tajimi, Japan.
Akiharu IshiyamaDepartment of Surgery, Okazaki City Hospital, Okazaki, Japan.
Hidenobu MatsushitaDepartment of Surgery, Tosei General Hospital, Seto, Japan.
Chie TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Daisuke KobayashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Michitaka FujiwaraDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Kenta MurotaniBiostatistics Center, Graduate School of Medicine, Kurume University, Kurume, Japan.
Yasuhiro KoderaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery (Surgery II), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Nagoya University · JPAichi Cancer Center · JPGifu Prefectural Tajimi Hospital · JPIchinomiya Municipal City Hospital · JPKomaki City Hospital · JPKonan Kosei Hospital · JPKurume University · JPOkazaki City Hospital · JPTosei General Hospital · JPYokkaichi Municipal Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to clarify the utility of lymph node ratio (LNR) for assessing the prognosis of patients with node-positive gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data of 973 patients with node-positive gastric cancer who had undergone curative gastrectomy at nine institutions from 2010 to 2014. Survival analysis was performed by comparing LNR low and high groups according to the optimal cutoff value of LNR, which was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

resultsLNR high was significantly associated with shorter disease-free survival and was an independent predictor of recurrence in all patients. Moreover, we obtained the similar results from analysis of each N stage. The prevalence of lymph node and peritoneal recurrence appeared to be higher in the LNR high group. Correlation analysis showed that LNR was negatively correlated with the number of retrieved nodes within every N stage; however, disease-free survival did not differ significantly between LNR low and high groups of each N stage with 16-30, 31-40, or >40 retrieved nodes.

conclusionsLNR is a strong prognostic factor and predictor of recurrence in patients with node-positive gastric cancer who have undergone curative gastrectomy. The combination of LNR and N staging permits more accurate prognostic stratification of patients with gastric cancer and may contribute to developing novel prognostic models.

Indexed as

Stomach NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph Node RatioLymph NodesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID32892273
OpenAlexW3083402295

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.