ArticleBMC cancer2025
Novel surveillance protocol for gastric cancer based on CEA: a high-volume multi-center study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tumor markers are commonly used in gastric cancer patients, but their effectiveness in monitoring recurrences is not optimal. This study aims to evaluate the recurrence predictive performance of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) across different baseline groups and establish a new surveillance protocol. We analyzed data from 1708 patients at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center with stage I-III gastric adenocarcinoma. The research findings were subjected to longitudinal validation (expanded dataset comprising 6422 follow-up records of patients) and external validation (109 patients from the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 61.1% (95% CI: 57.4%-65.0%) for the normal baseline group and 42.1% (95% CI: 36.4%-48.6%) for the elevated baseline group. The normalization group had DFS similar to the persistently normal group (p = 0.117). For recurrence prediction efficacy, the elevated baseline group showed significantly higher sensitivity than the normal baseline group (0.73 vs. 0.32, p = 0.001), while the normal baseline group had superior specificity (0.87 vs. 0.59, p = 0.031). These results were confirmed in longitudinal validation and external validation cohorts. Different monitoring strategy should be used for different CEA baseline patients. Incorporating CEA monitoring into gastric cancer surveillance protocols with the above method may be included in the surveillance protocols of NCCN gastric cancer guideline.
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.