SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Endoscopic resection or radical gastrectomy? Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2026. 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.
- Carbohydrate antigen 72-4 and tumor-associated glycoprotein 72 - tumor marker: Past, present and future.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe management of EGC hinges on accurate LNM risk assessment, guiding the critical choice between endoscopic resection (ER) and radical gastrectomy. This study provides a comprehensive evidence synthesis to optimize treatment selection.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251152013) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase was performed for studies published up to September 5, 2025. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, and the certainty of evidence for each association was evaluated with the GRADE framework. Statistical heterogeneity was investigated, and the sources were explored through meta-regression where appropriate.
resultsOne hundred one studies were included. Meta-analysis identified predictors: LVI (OR = 9.04, with LVI negative as reference, 95% CI: 7.18-11.37), mucosal invasion (T1a) (OR = 0.20, with T1b as reference, 95% CI: 0.19-0.22), tumor size ≤ 2 cm (OR = 0.39, with > 2 cm as reference, 95% CI: 0.36-0.43), differentiated histology (OR = 0.45, with undifferentiated type as reference, 95% CI: 0.40-0.50), PNI (OR = 3.41, with PNI negative as reference, 95% CI: 2.46-4.71), ulceration (OR = 1.68, with ulceration negative as reference, 95% CI: 1.37-2.05), age ≤ 60 years (OR = 1.13, with > 60 years old as reference, 95% CI: 1.06-1.21), male (OR = 0.69, with females as reference, 95% CI: 0.65-0.72), middle location (OR = 0.96, with other parts as reference, 95% CI: 0.90-1.02), CEA > 0.5 ng/mL (OR = 1.35, with CEA ≤ 0.5ng/mL as reference, 95% CI: 1.04-1.75), CA199 > 37 U/mL (OR = 4.02, with CA199 ≤ 37 U/mL as reference, 95% CI: 1.46-11.11), CA125 (OR = 1.17, with CA125 ≤ 35 U/mL as reference, 95% CI: 0.48-2.81), CA724 (OR = 1.33, with CA724 ≤ 7 U/mL as reference, 95% CI: 0.84-2.11). All reported pooled ORs represent unadjusted estimates derived from univariate data.
conclusionThis meta-analysis provides a comprehensive evidence base for risk stratification in EGC. By distinguishing patients suitable for ER from those requiring radical operation, our findings serve as a critical guide for optimizing clinical practice and resolving the therapeutic dilemma between endoscopy and radical surgery.
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.