ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Prognosis and Metachronous Gastric Tumor Rates After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Between Gastric Neoplasm of Fundic Gland Type Neoplasms and Conventional Gastric Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Long-term outcomes after endoscopic resection of gastric adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type and oxyntic gland adenoma: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Central Depression among Pretreatment Endoscopic Features is Associated with Submucosal Invasion in Gastric Fundic Gland-Type Tumors.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGastric neoplasm of the fundic gland type (GNFG) is a tumor with a good prognosis. However, since it has not been compared with conventional gastric adenocarcinoma (CGA), it is unknown whether it has a good prognosis or requires surveillance after treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the prognosis and metachronous gastric tumor rates compared with those of CGA.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective, matched-cohort study using our database from January 2010 to December 2021. We extracted GNFG data from the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) database and matched patients with conventional early gastric cancer as controls in a 1:4 ratio by age and sex. GNFG and CGA were compared for the overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival, progression-free survival, and metachronous gastric tumor rates.
resultsOverall, 43 lesions were GNFG and 164 CGAs were matched. There were three deaths in the GNFG group and 11 deaths in the CGA group. There was no significant difference in the OS between the two groups (P=0.81). The five-year OS rates for the GNFG and CGA groups were 90.9% and 92.9%, respectively. No disease-specific deaths or recurrences were observed in either group. There was no significant difference in the cumulative metachronous gastric tumor rate between the two groups (P=0.17). The cumulative five-year metachronous gastric tumor rates for the GNFG and CGA groups were 6.6% and 2.5%, respectively.
conclusionsThe prognosis for GNFG is good, however, not better than that for CGA. The metachronous gastric tumor rate after ESD in GNFG was not lower than that in CGA. Therefore, after ESD, GNFG may need to be managed in the same way as CGA.
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.