ArticleCancers2023
Response Evaluation after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Retrospective analysis of predictive factors for pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Long-term outcome after perioperative chemotherapy and surgery for gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Carcinoembryonic antigen trajectory predicts pathological complete response in advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Neoadjuvant Gastric Score: How Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Affects Overall Survival and Adjuvant Benefit.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe method of response evaluation following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable gastric cancer has been widely debated. An essential prerequisite is the ability to stratify patients into subsets of different long-term survival rates based on the response mode. Histopathological measures of regression have their limitations, and interest resides in CT-based methods that can be used in everyday settings.
methodsWe conducted a population-based study (2007-2016) on 171 consecutive patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who were receiving NAC. Two methods of response evaluation were investigated: a strict radiological procedure using RECIST (downsizing), and a composite radiological/pathological procedure comparing the initial radiological TNM stage to the pathological ypTNM stage (downstaging). Clinicopathological variables that could predict the response were searched for, and correlations between the response mode and long-term survival rates were assessed.
resultsRECIST failed to identify half of the patients progressing to metastatic disease, and it was unable to assign patients to subsets with different long-term survival rates based on the response mode. However, the TNM stage response mode did achieve this objective. Following re-staging, 48% (78/164) were downstaged, 15% (25/164) had an unchanged stage, and 37% (61/164) were upstaged. A total of 9% (15/164) showed a histopathological complete response. The 5-year overall survival rate was 65.3% (95% CI 54.7-75.9%) for TNM downstaged cases, 40.0% (95% CI 20.8-59.2%) for stable disease, and 14.8% (95% CI 6.0-23.6%) for patients with TNM progression,
conclusionsDownsizing, as a method for evaluating the response to NAC in gastric cancer, is discouraged. TNM re-staging by comparing the baseline radiological CT stage to the pathological stage following NAC is suggested as a useful method that may be used in everyday situations.
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.