ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
The diagnosis and outcome of Krukenberg tumors.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival Outcomes in Stage IV Gastric Cancer Patients with Krukenberg Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Krukenberg tumours: diagnosis challenges, treatment approaches, and survival, sixteen-year experience at a single tertiary women's hospital.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Imaging features of appendiceal signet ring cell carcinoma with uterine implantation: A case report.World journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Krukenberg Tumors: Does Surgical Resection Improve Survival?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A case report and literature review: gastric cancer with Krukenberg tumor in a patient with situs inversus totalis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Single-cell RNA transcriptomic analyses of tumor microenvironment of ovarian metastasis in gastric cancer.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Significance of dysregulated M2 macrophage andTranslational cancer research · 2024Article
- Colorectal Origin: A Marker of Favorable Outcome in Krukenberg Tumor? Results from Clinical and Prognostic Analysis.South Asian journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Krukenberg tumor arising from gastric cancer presenting as Pseudo-Meigs' syndrome: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnostic tools are crucial to distinguish patients with Krukenberg tumors from those with ovarian cancers before decision on initial management. To address this unmet need, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of clinical, biochemical, and radiographic factors in this patient population.
methodsPatients with Krukenberg tumors or primary ovarian cancers were retrospectively identified from institutional cancer registry. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis. Logistic regression evaluated clinical, biochemical, and radiographic factors; residual deep neural network model evaluated features in computed tomography images as predictors to distinguish Krukenberg tumors from ovarian cancers. Model performance was summarized as accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsThis study included 214 patients with Krukenberg tumors with median age of 52 years. Among 104 (48.6%) patients with colorectal cancer, those who received palliative surgery had significantly higher median overall survival (48.1 versus 30.6 months, P=0.015) and progression-free survival (22.2 versus 6.7 months, P<0.001) than those with medical management only. The accuracy of radiology reports to make either diagnosis of Krukenberg tumors or primary ovarian cancers was 60.7%. In contrast, multivariable logistic regression model with age [odds ratio (OR) 2.98, P<0.001], carbohydrate antigen 125 (OR 1.57, P=0.004), and carcinoembryonic antigen (OR 0.03, P=0.031) had 87.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 75.0-100.0%] accuracy with AUC 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-1.00). The neural network model had 62.8% (95% CI: 51.8-74.5%) accuracy with AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53-0.72).
conclusionsWe developed a diagnostic model with clinical and biochemical features to distinguish Krukenberg tumors from primary ovarian cancers with promising accuracy.
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.