ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Outcomes After Resection of Adenocarcinoma of the Gastric Cardia by Surgical Approach.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTotal gastrectomy and esophagectomy are commonly used surgical approaches for cardia gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) resection. However, the preferred approach remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to identify predictors of receipt of surgical approach type and compare surgical approach outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with stage IB-IIIC cardia GA from 2004 to 2017 were identified within the National Cancer Database. Patients were compared on the basis of receipt of total gastrectomy versus partial gastrectomy with esophagectomy. Predictors of receiving esophagectomy were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Predictors associated with overall survival (OS) were assessed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsA total of 9841 patients were included. More patients underwent esophagectomy compared with total gastrectomy (77.2% vs. 22.8%). Surgical approach utilization did not vary significantly over time (p = 0.6). Patients who were non-white or female (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-0.9) were less likely to receive esophagectomy. The median number of lymph nodes resected was greater for total gastrectomy versus esophagectomy (18 vs. 15, p < 0.01). There was no difference in resection margins (93.6% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.3) or 30-day mortality (3.0% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.2). Total gastrectomy and esophagectomy had similar OS (40.2 vs. 40.1 months, p = 0.7). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival for total gastrectomy versus esophagectomy (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9-1.0).
conclusionsUtilization of total gastrectomy and esophagectomy has remained stable over time with esophagectomy being more utilized. These approaches exhibit similar oncologic outcomes for proximal GA. Surgeons should consider long-term outcomes, such as quality of life and nutritional status, when selecting an approach.
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.