ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2024
Oncological similarities between large type 3 and type 4 tumors in patients with resectable gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of a multi-institutional dataset.
Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 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.
- Impact of the Cachexia Index on survival and recurrence in patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Optimal Cutoff Size of Large Borrmann Type III Gastric Cancer: Is 8 cm Accurate in Predicting Survival and Incidence of Peritoneal Metastasis?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Therapeutic strategy for scirrhous type gastric cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge type 3 (diameter ≥ 8 cm) and type 4 gastric cancers have been arbitrarily combined in Japan as a single entity. However, whether these two types are oncologically similar remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify this issue.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed a database of 3,575 patients from nine institutions who underwent gastrectomy between 2010 and 2014. Using propensity scores to balance significant variables, we compared prognoses and tumor recurrences.
resultsOf patients with clinical T3/T4 who underwent R0 resection, 75 and 73 had large type 3 and 4 tumors, respectively. Patients with type 4 tumors had significantly lower overall survival rates than those of patients with large type 3 tumors (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.74). However, among the large type 3 tumors, a remarkable difference in prognosis was observed between the differentiated and undifferentiated histological types. A comparison was made between large type 3 with undifferentiated phenotype and type 4, each with 39 patients after propensity score matching. Outcomes in both groups were similar in terms of overall survival (HR 1.28; 95% CI 0.73-2.25) and relapse-free survival (HR 1.34; 95% CI 0.80-2.27). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of peritoneal recurrence (35.9% vs. 46.1%, P = 0.36) and lymph node recurrence (25.6% vs. 12.8%, P = 0.15).
conclusionsLarge type 3 tumors with undifferentiated phenotype and type 4 tumors were oncologically similar. This subgroup could be considered as a new entity for future clinical trials.
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.