ReviewUpdates in surgery2023
Surgical pathology of adenocarcinomas arising around or within the gastroesophageal junction.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of baseline CT imaging features combined with serum biomarkers for neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic challenges of rarely well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classification of adenocarcinomas (AC) arising around or within the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) is hampered by major morphologic and phenotypic overlaps. We reviewed the surgical pathology of esophagectomy specimens of 115 primary resected AC of the esophagus as defined by the 5th edition of the WHO classification regarding the anatomical site of the tumor, with corresponding categorization according to the Siewert AEG Classification and the preceding 4th edition of the WHO (discriminating esophageal adenocarcinomas/EAC and adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction/AdGEJ), and further histology findings. In addition, immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CDX2, CK7, CK20, MUC2, MUC5AC and MUC6 was performed. Sixty-eight cases were Siewert AEG type I and 47 cases Siewert AEG type II. Out of the AEG I tumors, 26 were classified as AdGEJ. Regardless of the classification system, more proximally located tumors showed less aggressive behavior with lower rates of lymph node metastases, lymphatic, venous and perineural invasion, better histological differentiation (p < 0.05 each) and were more frequently associated with pre-neoplastic Barrett's mucosa (p < 0.001). Histologically, the tumors displayed intestinal morphology in the majority of cases. IHC showed non-conclusive patterns with a frequent CK7+/CK20+ immunophenotype in all tumors, but also a gastric MUC5AC+ and MUC6+ phenotype in some proximal tumors. In conclusion, histology of the tumors and IHC failed to distinguish reliably between more proximal and more distal tumors. The presence of Barrett's mucosa rather than location alone, however, may help to further differentiating adenocarcinomas arising in this region and may be indicative for a particular biologic type.
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.