Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35655198›Full record

ReviewBMC surgery2022

Comparison of CEA and CA19-9 as a predictive factor for recurrence after curative gastrectomy in gastric cancer.

Chikashi Shibata, Toru Nakano, Akihiro Yasumoto, Atsushi Mitamura, Kentaro Sawada, Hitoshi Ogawa, Tomoya Miura, Ichiro Ise, Kazuhiro Takami, Kuniharu Yamamoto and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chikashi ShibataDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan. cshibata@tohoku-mpu.ac.jp.
Toru NakanoDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Akihiro YasumotoDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Atsushi MitamuraDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Kentaro SawadaDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Hitoshi OgawaDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Tomoya MiuraDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Ichiro IseDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Kazuhiro TakamiDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Kuniharu YamamotoDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Yu KatayoseDivision of Gastroenterologic Surgery, and Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 1-12-1 Fukumuro, Miyagino-ku, Sendai, 983-8512, Japan.
Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim of was to compare importance of the tumor markers (TMs) serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in prediction of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

methodsWe reviewed retrospectively the clinical records of 149 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for stage I-III gastric cancer and whose CEA and CA19-9 levels were determined once preoperatively and for more than 3 years postoperatively. We investigated whether the clinicopathological characteristics of patients including age, sex, pathological disease stage, operative approach, type of gastrectomy, and degree of lymph node dissection as well as preoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 were risk factors for recurrence in univariate and multivariate analyses. Rate of recurrence was compared between patients positive and negative for postoperative CEA or CA19-9. We also calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictable values of postoperative positivity of CEA and CA19-9 for recurrence. The lead time was compared between CEA and CA19-9 that was defined as the time of the first detection of increases in tumor markers and confirmation of recurrence on imaging modalities.

resultsThe number of patients positive for preoperative CEA was 25 (17%) and for CA19-9 was 11 (7%). Recurrence was confirmed in 29 (19%) patients. Stage III disease, preoperative positivity for CA19-9 but not CEA, and total gastrectomy were risk factors for recurrence in univariate analysis, but stage III disease was the only risk factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis. Forty and 15 patients were positive for postoperative CEA and CA19-9, respectively. The recurrence rate of 47% (7/15) in patients positive for postoperative CA19-9 was greater than that in negative patients (22/134 = 16%), but it did not differ between patients who were positive or negative for postoperative CEA. Specificity for CA19-9 was greater than that for CEA (P < 0.05). The lead time of CEA (3.9 ± 4.7 months) was not different from that of CA19-9 (6.1 ± 7.1 months).

conclusionsThese results indicate that CA19-9 rather than CEA is likely to be more useful for the detection of recurrence after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

CA-19-9 AntigenStomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenGastrectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenCarbohydrate antigen 19-9Carcinoembryonic antigenGastrectomyGastric cancerRecurrenceTumor marker

Identifiers

PMID35655198
PMCPMC9164336
OpenAlexW4281651815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.