ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Subclassification scheme for adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction and prognostic analysis based on clinicopathological features.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has distinct malignant features compared with other esophageal and gastric cancers. Its management is controversial and largely influenced by tumor location and esophageal involvement. Hence, understanding the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of AEG is essential for optimizing treatment strategies.
aimTo evaluate the prognosis and clinicopathological features of patients with AEG, providing insights for management strategies.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed cases with AEG admitted between January 2016 and December 2017. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were categorized into three groups: Type E [tumors whose center was located within 5 cm above the esophagogastric junction (EGJ)]; Type Eg (tumors whose center was situated within 2 cm below the EGJ), with a 2-cm esophageal invasion; Type Ge (tumors whose center was situated within 2 cm below the EGJ, with an esophageal invasion of < 2 cm, based on tumor location and esophageal involvement. Then, clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of the groups were compared to evaluate the predictive value of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Alliance against Cancer 8
resultsTotally, 153 patients with AEG were included (median follow up: 41.1 months; 22, 31, and 100 patients from type E, Eg, and Ge, respectively), with significant differences in maximum tumor length, esophageal involvement length, tumor type, pathology, differentiation, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastasis between the groups (
conclusionClinicopathological characteristics and prognoses varied between the AEG groups, with type E demonstrating distinct features. The gastric cancer staging system more accurately predicted type Ge AEG prognosis, guiding clinical decision-making.
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.