ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Construction and Validation of Convenient Clinicopathologic Signatures for Predicting the Prognosis of Stage I-III Gastric Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Metastatic Lymph Node Count and Primary Tumor Size with Disease-Free Survival in Stage II-III Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Prognostic effect of CEA, AFP, CA19‑9 and CA242 for recurrence/metastasis of gastric cancer following radical gastrectomy.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- CA19‑9 is a significant prognostic factor in stage III gastric cancer patients undergoing radical gastrectomy.BMC surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with stage I-III gastric cancer (GC) undergoing R0 radical resection display extremely different prognoses. How to discriminate high-risk patients with poor survival conveniently is a clinical conundrum to be solved urgently. Methods: Patients with stage I-III GC from 2010 to 2016 were included in our study. The associations of clinicopathological features with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined Results: A total of 585 and 410 patients were included in the discovery cohort and the validation cohort, respectively. T stage, N stage, lymphatic/vascular/nerve infiltration, preoperative CEA, and CA19-9 were independent prognostic factors (P < 0.05). Two prognostic signatures with a concordance index (C-index) of 0.7502 for DFS and 0.7341 for OS were developed based on the nomograms. The 3-year and 5-year calibration curves showed a perfect correlation between predicted and observed outcomes. Patients were divided into three risk groups (low, intermediate, high), and distinct differences were noticed (p < 0.001). Similar results were achieved in the validation cohort. Notably, a free website was constructed based on our signatures to predict the recurrence risk and survival time of patients with stage I-III GC. Conclusions: The signatures demonstrate the powerful ability to conveniently identify distinct subpopulations, which may provide significant suggestions for individual follow-up and adjuvant therapy.
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.