ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Feasibility of a "Stomach-preserving Strategy" for Perforated Gastric Cancer in Patients With Distant Metastasis.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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.
- Perforated Gastric Cancer: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Surgical Management Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Hemorrhagic Complications in Gastric Cancer: Current Evidence and Multidisciplinary Management Strategies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Two-Stage Gastrectomy Improves Outcomes in Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.Cureus · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimGastrectomy is often performed for perforated gastric cancer in patients receiving treatment with curative intent. However, gastrectomy is not a curative procedure, precludes oral intake, and may hinder palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic disease. The present study assessed the feasibility of a "stomach-preserving strategy" comprising peritoneal lavage and repair surgery for the management of gastric cancer perforation in patients with distant metastasis. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with gastric cancer who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital from 2013 to 2021. The clinical courses of patients who had undergone peritoneal lavage and repair surgery for perforated gastric cancer with distant metastasis were reviewed to evaluate postoperative outcomes.
resultsDuring the study period, 3,862 patients underwent radical gastrectomy. Additionally, nine patients with stage IV gastric cancer with distant metastasis prior to treatment underwent emergency surgery due to gastric perforation. Of the nine patients that underwent emergency surgery, seven patients underwent peritoneal lavage and repair surgery and two underwent peritoneal lavage only. No cases of secondary leakage were observed. Seven patients (78%) had a good postoperative course including the resumption of meals and continuation of chemotherapy. The remaining two died of sepsis. The median overall survival time was five months from surgery and 12 months from the initiation of palliative chemotherapy.
conclusionA "stomach-preserving strategy" for the management of perforated gastric cancer is safe in patients with stage IV gastric cancer with distant metastasis and allows continuation of oral intake and palliative chemotherapy.
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.