ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating survival outcomes and treatment recommendations in resectable gastric cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Current Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Gastric Cancer.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Elucidating the multiscale mechanisms and therapeutic targets of caffeic acid in gastric cancer: a synergy of computational and experimental approaches.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
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
No consensus exists on the optimal therapy for resectable gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumors, including the effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy versus perioperative chemotherapy (PC). Our study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) outcomes associated with the recommended treatment modalities for GC and GEJ tumors and evaluate treatment trends from 2010 to 2020. A national registry cohort identified patients with ≥ cT2 nonmetastatic GC and GEJ cancer. Treatment modalities were classified as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCR), PC, adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), and adjuvant chemoradiation (ACR). Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariable Cox regression models evaluated factors associated with OS. A cohort of 7665 patients were included. Patients who received PC had the highest OS (median 86.80 months, 95% CI 73.40-NE), while chemoradiotherapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings had worse OS than PC and NC (NCR median 47.15 months, 95% CI 44.58-52.27, and ACR median 52.67 months, 95%CI 42.78-63.93). The Cox proportional hazards model showed that NCR and NC had worse survival than PC (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.50-2.02, p < 0.001 and HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.44, p = 0.0008, respectively). Additionally, the most utilized modality during 2020 was NC (35.8%), followed by PC (28.0%) and NCR (24.9%). The utilization of PC and NC had the most substantial rise between 2010 and 2020, increasing by 11.0%. The study demonstrates the association of PC with improved OS outcomes for nonmetastatic GC and GEJ tumors. Therapies combining radiation with chemotherapy and extended lymph node dissection correlated with a worse prognosis compared to PC and NC. Despite the association with improved outcomes, national data reveals low utilization rates for PC.
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.