ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2023
The inaccuracies of gastric adenocarcinoma clinical staging and its predictive factors.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery following chemotherapy for cStage IVb gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Asia Pacific Gastroesophageal Cancer Congress (APGCC) 2024 consensus statement on stage 2 and 3 locally advanced gastric and Siewert 3 junctional adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Exploring the potential of machine learning in gastric cancer: prognostic biomarkers, subtyping, and stratification.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Staging accuracy in patients with clinical T2N0 gastric cancer: Implications for treatment sequencing.Surgery · 2025Article
- Histomorphological development and progression of gastric intramucosal papillary adenocarcinoma-a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccurate clinical staging (CS) of gastric adenocarcinoma is important to guide treatment planning. Our objectives were to (1) assess clinical to pathologic stage migration patterns for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, (2) identify factors associated with inaccurate CS, and (3) evaluate the association of understaging with survival.
methodsThe National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent upfront resection for stage I-III gastric adenocarcinoma. Multivariable logistic regression was used to detect factors associated with inaccurate understaging. Kaplan-Meier analyses and cox proportional hazards regression were performed to assess overall survival (OS) for patients with inaccurate CS.
resultsOf 14 425 analyzed patients, 5781 (40.1%) patients were inaccurately staged. Factors associated with understaging included treatment at a Comprehensive Community Cancer Program, presence of lymphovascular invasion, moderate to poor differentiation, large tumor size, and T2 disease. Based on overall CS, median OS was 51.0 months for accurately staged patients and 29.5 months for understaged patients (<0.001).
conclusionClinical T-category, large tumor size, and worse histologic features lead to inaccurate CS for gastric adenocarcinoma, impacting OS. Improvements to staging parameters and diagnostic modalities focusing on these factors may improve prognostication.
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.