Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724453›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2025

Hazard rates of recurrence for gastric cancer after curative resection: implications for postoperative surveillance.

Kyohei Kanematsu, Yuta Nakayama, Mie Tanabe, Junya Morita, Shinsuke Nagasawa, Takanobu Yamada, Takashi Ogata, Takashi Oshima

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Follow-Up and Strategies After Curative Surgical Resection for Gastric Cancer.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kyohei KanematsuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan. kanematsu.1l30m@kanagawa-pho.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-0963-8890
Yuta NakayamaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Mie TanabeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Junya MoritaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Shinsuke NagasawaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Takanobu YamadaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Takashi OgataDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.
Takashi OshimaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-8515, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying the most effective postoperative surveillance interval in patients with gastric cancer (GC) remains challenging. To elucidate a logical and effective surveillance schedule, we analyzed GC recurrence risk trends after gastrectomy using the hazard function.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 2503 patients who underwent curative GC resection between 2000 and 2018. We examined recurrence risk over time and the influence of clinicopathological variables on it.

resultsOverall, GC recurred in 291 patients (11.6%) over a median of 64.6 months. Recurrence risk was highest at approximately 11-months postoperatively (hazard rate [HR]: 0.0045), decreasing to half the peak at approximately 39-months postoperatively. Patients with Stage I GC maintained a low risk. In Stage II patients, the risk peaked at 16-months postoperatively (HR: 0.006) and gradually declined thereafter. Stage III patients had the highest risk at 11 months postoperatively (HR: 0.019), plateauing at 40 months.

conclusionsWe demonstrated significant cancer stage-dependent differences in postsurgical GC recurrence risk by using the hazard function. Reductions in surveillance intensity might be acceptable according to the individual risk of recurrence.

Indexed as

GastrectomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPostoperative PeriodPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsGastric cancerHazard functionRecurrenceSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39724453
PMCPMC11842406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.