Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36183074›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and tumor regression grade in evaluating the effect of preoperative systemic therapy of gastric cancer.

Ming-Yu Lai, Shi-Yang Kang, Yu-Ting Sun, Ting-Ting Quan, Shi-Xun Lu, Cai-Yun He, Zhi-Wei Zhou, Li-Qiong Yang, Hui-Yan Luo, Feng-Hua Wang and 4 more

Abstract 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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A novel ypN-TRG staging system for gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy based on the metro-ticket paradigm: a multicenter and large sample retrospective analysis.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

14 authors.

Ming-Yu Lai *Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Shi-Yang Kang *Department of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yu-Ting Sun *Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Ting-Ting QuanDepartment of Image, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Shi-Xun LuDepartment of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Cai-Yun HeDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Zhi-Wei ZhouDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Li-Qiong YangDepartment of Experiment, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Hui-Yan LuoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Feng-Hua WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Yu-Hong LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Rui-Hua XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Wen-Long GuanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. guanwl@sysucc.org.cn.
Miao-Zhen QiuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. qiumzh@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and tumor regression grade (TRG) play key roles in evaluating tumor response. We analyzed the consistency of TRG and RECIST 1.1 for gastric cancer (GC) patients and compared their prognostic values.

methodsPatients with GC who received preoperative chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and had records of TRG from December 2013 to October 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. TRG 0-1 and 2-3 are considered as corresponding to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD)/progress disease (PD) in RECIST 1.1, respectively. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The consistency of RECIST and TRG was examined by kappa statistics. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan Meier method.

resultOne hundred fifty seven GC patients were enrolled, including 125 with preoperative chemotherapy and 32 with chemoimmunotherapy. Among them, 56 patients had measurable lesions. Only 19.6% (11/56) of the patients had consistent results between RECIST 1.1 and TRG. TRG was correlated with both OS and DFS (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) while response according to RECIST1.1 was not (P = 0.86 and 0.23, respectively). The median DFS had not reached in the TRG 0-1 group and was 16.13 months in TRG 2-3 group. TRG 2-3 was associated with young age and peritoneal or liver metastasis. Besides, preoperative chemoimmunotherapy had a significantly higher pCR rate than chemotherapy alone (34.4% vs 8.0%, P < 0.001).

conclusionTRG was in poor agreement with RECIST 1.1. TRG was better than RECIST 1.1 in predicting DFS and OS for GC patients who received preoperative therapy.

Indexed as

Stomach NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGastric cancerImmunotherapyPreoperative therapyResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumorsTumor regression grade

Identifiers

PMID36183074
PMCPMC9526302

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.