Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35831843›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

A potential decision-making algorithm based on endoscopic ultrasound for staging early gastric cancer: a retrospective study.

Yan Yan, Zhonghua Ma, Xin Ji, Jiawei Liu, Ke Ji, Shijie Li, Qi Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yan Yan *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Endoscopy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, #52 Fucheng Road Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Zhonghua Ma *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Endoscopy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, #52 Fucheng Road Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Xin Ji *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Center of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
Jiawei Liu *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Center of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
Ke JiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Center of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
Shijie LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Endoscopy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, #52 Fucheng Road Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Qi WuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Endoscopy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, #52 Fucheng Road Haidian District, Beijing, China. wuqi1973@163.com.
Peking University · CNPeking University Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

Beijing Hospitals Authority Youth Programme QML20211103Beijing Municipal Commission of Science & Technology Z171100001017135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical staging of gastric cancer (GC) before treatment is essential. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a recommended staging tool, but its efficacy remains controversial. Our previous prospective study evaluated the potential value of EUS for T staging and presented discrepancies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS in T staging by comparing it with pathological staging. We analyze the factors that can potentially affect accuracy to identify suitable subgroups for EUS staging.

methodsData from a total of 1763 consecutive patients with GC from January 2015 to December 2017 were analyzed. Results from EUS and pathological T staging were compared. The factors that might affect EUS's accuracy were analyzed.

resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EUS in patients with early GC were 62.08%, 96.13%, 90.94%, and 80.21%, respectively. The accuracy rates of uT1, uT2-uT4, and uT3-uT4 were 90.94%, 79.02%, and 78.39%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, underestimation was more likely to be observed in patients with tumors located in the middle or upper third of the stomach. Overestimation was more likely to be observed in patients with tumors located in the lower third or those without ulcer. Other factors affecting accuracy included ulcer, differentiation, larger size and undergoing surgery.

conclusionOur findings highlight the role of EUS in determining the T staging of GC. Overestimation and underestimation in T-staging were significantly associated with the tumor location in early GC, and a decision-making algorithm was proposed for clinical practice in early cancers based on these findings.

Indexed as

Stomach NeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesUlcerEndoscopic ultrasoundGastric cancerT staging

Identifiers

PMID35831843
PMCPMC9281103
OpenAlexW4285087349

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.