ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Comparison among Early-Onset, Late-Onset, and Conventional-Onset Adenocarcinoma of Stomach and Esophagogastric Junction: a Retrospective Study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of EOGC has been increasing, while COGC has decreased over the past few decades. The objective of this study was to identify differences in clinical characteristics and prognosis and to verify survival results among early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC), conventional-onset gastric cancer (COGC), late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC), and within the adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) group. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective trend analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma between 2002 and 2021. Additionally, 3,940 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy between January 2009 and December 2019 were included in a further analysis. The patients were categorized into three groups based on their age: EOGC, COGC, and LOGC. The study compared the three groups' demographic parameters, surgical details, pathological characteristics, and survival rates.
resultsFrom 2002 to 2021, there was a fluctuating decrease in the surgical population of EOGC from 18.0% to 9.4% (p < 0.0001). 3940 patients were included in this analysis, EOGC (n = 572), COGC (n = 2816), and LOGC (n = 552). The EOGC group indicated a higher proportion of females (p < 0.0001), poorer differentiation p < 0.0001), higher proportion of signet-ring cell cancer (SRCC) (p < 0.0001), and lower Her-2 expression (p = 0.0038) than the COGC and LOGC groups. EOGC patients showed the best overall survival rate compared to COGC (p = 0.0110) and LOGC (p < 0.0001). After stratified by TNM stage, LOGC patients had the worst survival among all stages. When considering the patients with AEG, the EOGC group showed the worst survival outcome (p = 0.0130). Only patients with COGC showed improved survival with chemotherapy compared to those without it (stage II: p = 0.0051; stage III: p = 0.0160).
conclusionA decreasing trend in the EOGC surgical population has been observed over the past 20 years at West China Hospital. Compared to COGC patients, EOGC patients had a higher proportion of females, SRCC cases, poorer differentiation, and lower Her-2 expression, but demonstrated a better survival outcome. Conversely, the worst prognosis outcome was observed in EOGC patients within the AEG subgroup. LOGC was an independent negative factor for survival results. Chemotherapy did not improve the prognosis for EOGC and LOGC patients at stage II and III.
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.