Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33145294›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020

Impact of examined lymph node count on staging and long-term survival of patients with node-negative stage III gastric cancer: a retrospective study using a Chinese multi-institutional registry with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data validation.

Nannan Zhang, Huihui Bai, Jingyu Deng, Wei Wang, Zhe Sun, Zhenning Wang, Huimian Xu, Zhiwei Zhou, Han Liang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. R1 Resection in Gastric Cancer: Marker of Tumor Biology Rather Than Surgical Failure.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nannan ZhangDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Cancer for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Huihui BaiDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Cancer for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jingyu DengDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Cancer for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Zhe SunDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Zhenning WangDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Huimian XuDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Zhiwei ZhouDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Han LiangDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Cancer for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CNChina Medical University · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccumulating evidence has confirmed the potential prognostic value of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) in patients with gastric cancer (GC). However, there is currently no consensus on the threshold ELN number for predicting both stage migration and long-term survival, especially in patients with stage III GC. This study aimed to validate the need to increase the ELN count to improve its prognostic accuracy in node-negative patients with stage III GC after curative gastrectomy.

methodsThis retrospective, population-based study analyzed the clinical data of 84 patients with node-negative stage III GC from three high-volume institutions in China and 196 cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program registry. The optimal number of ELNs was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics significantly related to survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Stratified analyses were adopted to assess the prognostic predictive ability of the identified optimal number of ELNs in different populations. Survival differences among subgroups were analyzed to assess the impact of ELN count on stage migration according to overall survival (OS) among GC patients.

resultsThe optimal number of ELNs was >31 according to ROC analysis of patients with node-negative stage III GC who underwent gastrectomy. Multivariate analysis identified ELNs as an independent predictor of postoperative OS in patients with node-negative stage III GC in both the Chinese cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.235; P<0.001] and the SEER cohort (HR 0.421; P<0.010). Stratified analysis demonstrated that >31 ELNs was a prerequisite for accurate prognostic evaluation of patients with node-negative stage III GC, regardless of sex, tumor size, and other factors. Stage migration between pT4bN0M0 and pT4bN1M0 was detected in patients with >31 ELNs. A nomogram was created to predict OS among patients with node-negative stage III GC. These results were validated using data from the SEER cohort.

conclusionsThe number of ELNs was significantly associated with prognosis in patients with stage III GC after gastrectomy with systemic lymphadenectomy in both the Chinese and SEER cohorts. The results suggest that >31 ELNs are required for an accurate prognostic evaluation in patients with GC, especially those with node-negative stage III GC.

Indexed as

lymph nodemetastasisneoplasmprognosisStomach

Identifiers

PMID33145294
PMCPMC7575951
OpenAlexW3048716368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.