ReviewGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2021
Clinical biomarkers in adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer after D2 dissection by a pooled analysis of individual patient data from large randomized controlled trials.
Review in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.Practical radiation oncologyGuideline
- Usefulness of an S-1 dosage formula: an exploratory analysis of randomized clinical trial (JCOG1001).Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022Trial
- Optimal response population after neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: A multicenter study.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Gustave Roussy Immune Score (GRImScore) as a Novel Prognostic Index for Stage III Gastric Cancer Patients: A Real-World Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and platelet counts during chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.Saudi medical journal · 2023Article
- Tumor-infiltrating CD226Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Prognostic effect of excessive chemotherapy cycles for stage II and III gastric cancer patients after D2 + gastrectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical biomarkers in adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer after D2 dissection by a pooled analysis of individual patient data from large randomized controlled trials.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdjuvant therapy for gastric cancer is a standard among the world with no regimen selection criteria. Also, prognostic factors except for tumor staging have not been established. We aimed to identify prognostic and predictive markers for gastric cancer adjuvant therapy from large randomized controlled trials with standard lymph node dissection.
methodsThree studies: ACTS-GC, CLASSIC, and SAMIT were found and selected for a pooled analysis, following PRISMA guideline. The integrity of individual participant data (IPD) was verified in the eligible 3527 patients registered, and fixed-effect model was used. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
resultsAge was a significant prognostic factor in addition to tumor stages both in "surgery alone" and "adjuvant" groups. Adjuvant therapy was effective for every TN stage; however, it tended to be more effective in T1-2 than in T3-4. Also, it was more effective in low- or middle-BMI than in high-BMI group with Hazard ratio [HR]s: 0.58, 0.58, and 1.05, respectively. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) was more effective than S-1 for T1-2, N2-3, and differentiated type with HRs between 0.59 and 0.70, but with no difference among TNM stages. Combining histology to TN; the HRs in differentiated T1-2 N1-3 groups were between 0.29 and 0.45. For T3-4 N0-1 group, S-1 was likely to be effective, not significant.
conclusionsAge is a significant prognostic factor both in surgery alone and adjuvant group. CAPOX is more effective for differentiated T1-2 tumors with lymph node metastasis.
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.