ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Survival outcome and prognostic factors of remnant gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival outcomes in early gastric cancer: evidence from SEER-based population studies.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based reconstruction of prognostic staging for gastric cancer patients with different differentiation grades: A multicenter retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical Features, Prognosis, and Prognostic Factors of Remnant Gastric Cancer Patients Who Received Potentially Curative Gastrectomy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies on survival and prognostic factors in individuals with remnant gastric cancer (RGC) after gastric cancer (GC) are rare. It is debatable whether prognosis of RGC after GC is worse than that of only primary GC (OPGC). The objective of this study is to compare the survival outcomes between post-GC RGC and OPGC undergoing surgical resection and to identify the prognostic factors of disease-specific survival (DSS) for RGC. Methods: We retrospectively collected data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database among patients who underwent GC surgery in 1988-2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed to compare their overall survival (OS) and DSS. Multivariable Cox analyses were performed to identify the independent prognostic factors of DSS for post-GC RGC by estimating hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: There were 76 patients with RGC and 32,763 patients with OPGC included and analyzed. After balancing the baseline characteristics by PSM, no significant difference existed between OPGC and RGC groups in both OS (P=0.65) and DSS (P=0.28). Fixed-time analyses also showed no difference between the two groups for the 5-year (60.0%, RGC Conclusions: The prognosis of post-GC RGC was comparable to that of OPGC following surgical resection. The independent prognostic factors for RGC are similar to those established for OPGC. Our findings suggest that RGC following first GC might be the same entity to OPGC and curative resection should be considered in selected 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.