ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Risk factors and prognostic analysis of microscopic positive esophageal margins after radical surgery for proximal gastric cancer.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with positive intraoperative frozen section margins: a single-cohort analysis.Korean journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- R1 Resection in Gastric Cancer: Marker of Tumor Biology Rather Than Surgical Failure.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Clinicopathological Features and Prognostic Impact of Microscopic Resection Margin Positivity After Curative Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProximal gastric cancer has been on the rise worldwide in recent years. A positive surgical margin may result in incomplete tumor and affect the prognosis of patients. This study aims to analyse the risk factors for and prognosis associated with microscopic positive esophageal margins (R1 resection) after radical surgery for proximal gastric cancer patients.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 316 patients with proximal gastric cancer who underwent surgical resection at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Hengshui People's Hospital from January 2013 to June 2018. Patients were divided into the R1 group (n = 24) and R0 group (n = 292) according to the esophageal margin status. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis between the two groups were compared.
resultsTumor location at the esophagogastric junction, Borrmann type 3/4, Lauren diffuse/mixed type, margin distance < 3 cm, pT4 stage, and vascular invasion were identified as independent risk factors for positive esophageal margins in proximal gastric cancer patients (all P < 0.05). The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly lower in the R1 group than in the R0 group (45.8% vs. 64.2%, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly lower in the R1 group in the pT2-3 and pN0 stages (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in the pT4 and pN(+) stages (P > 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that Borrmann type, Lauren type, pT stage, pN stage, and lymphovascular invasion were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with proximal gastric cancer (all P < 0.05), while esophageal margin status was not an independent risk factor affecting prognosis (P > 0.05).
conclusionPositive esophageal margins in proximal gastric cancer are associated with various clinicopathological factors and lead to a worse prognosis in patients with pT2-3 and pN0 stages but do not affect the prognosis of patients with pT4 and pN(+) stages.
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.