ArticlePloS one2024
Who are optimal candidates for primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma? A population-based study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe research aimed to construct a novel predictive nomogram to identify specific metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (mGAC) populations who could benefit from primary tumor resection (PTR).
methodPatients with mGAC were included in the SEER database and divided into PTR and non-PTR groups. The Kaplan-Meier analysis, propensity score matching (PSM), least absolute shrink and selection operator (LASSO) regression, multivariable logistic regression, and multivariate Cox regression methods were then used. Finally, the prediction nomograms were built and tested.
results3185 patients with mGAC were enrolled. Among the patients, 679 cases underwent PTR while the other 2506 patients didn't receive PTR. After PSM, the patients in the PTR group presented longer median overall survival (15.0 vs. 7.0 months, p < 0.001). Among the PTR group, 307 (72.9%) patients obtained longer overall survival than seven months (beneficial group). Then the LASSO logistic regression was performed, and gender, grade, T stage, N stage, pathology, and chemotherapy were included to construct the nomogram. In both the training and validation cohorts, the nomogram exhibited good discrimination (AUC: 0.761 and 0.753, respectively). Furthermore, the other nomogram was constructed to predict 3-, 6-, and 12-month cancer-specific survival based on the variables from the multivariate Cox analysis. The 3-, 6-, and 12-month AUC values were 0.794, 0.739, and 0.698 in the training cohort, and 0.805, 0.759, and 0.695 in the validation cohorts. The calibration curves demonstrated relatively good consistency between the predicted and observed probabilities of survival in two nomograms. The models' clinical utility was revealed through decision curve analysis.
conclusionThe benefit nomogram could guide surgeons in decision-making and selecting optimal candidates for PTR among mGAC patients. And the prognostic nomogram presented great prediction ability for these patients.
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.