ArticleScientific reports2025
Prognostic impact of clinical trial eligibility in patients with advanced 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Claudin18.2 positive gastric cancer: biology, tumor microenvironment, and therapeutic strategies.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
The CheckMate 649 trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of nivolumab plus chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced gastric cancer. However, the background discrepancy between clinical practice and randomized controlled trials may impact the therapeutic strategy and prognosis of patients. This study aimed to assess the clinical significance of eligibility criteria determined by the CheckMate 649 trial and identify prognostic factors in clinical practice. A total of 160 patients with HER2-negative metastatic gastric cancer who underwent chemotherapy were retrospectively enrolled and classified into two groups based on eligibility criteria. Among the 160 patients, 76 (47.5%) and 84 (52.5%) were included in the eligible and ineligible groups, respectively. The ineligible group had a significantly lower induction of second- and third-line chemotherapy than the eligible group (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively). The median overall survival in the eligible and ineligible groups was 22.9 and 10.5 months, respectively, with the ineligible group having a significantly poorer prognosis than the eligible group (P < 0.01). Responders to first-line chemotherapy had a better prognosis than non-responders in both groups (P = 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively). Multivariate analyses identified disease control as an independent prognostic factor in both groups (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively). Patients with a poor general condition who fulfilled the ineligibility criteria as determined using randomized controlled trials are included in clinical practice, and these criteria are related to tumor response and prognosis.
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.