ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2026
External validation and comparison of five prediction models for lymph node metastasis after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.
Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdditional gastrectomy is recommended after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) despite the low incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The eCura system, W-eCura score, and 11-point score reportedly predict LNM risk; however, their comparative performance remains unclear. We aimed to externally validate and directly compare five risk stratification approaches in patients with noncurative ESD.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 634 consecutive patients with EGC who underwent noncurative ESD at a single high-volume center. Five prediction models were evaluated: the eCura system (7-point score and three-risk classification), W-eCura score (7-point score and three-risk classification), and 11-point score. All pathological findings were re-evaluated by an outcome-blinded expert pathologist. Model performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA).
resultsLNM was identified in 26 (4.9%) patients. All models showed comparable discrimination (c-statistics, 0.71 to 0.72). However, calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were poorer in the W-eCura score and 11-point score (- 1.43 to - 0.96 and 0.26 to 0.64) than in the eCura system (- 0.43 to - 0.40 and 0.83 to 0.84). Using DCA, the eCura system and W-eCura score consistently showed higher net benefits than did the 11-point score across clinically relevant threshold probabilities. Recalibration improved both calibration and net benefits across all models.
conclusionsDespite similar discriminative performance, the eCura system demonstrated relatively favorable calibration and potential clinical utility in this Japanese cohort. Given their simplicity and structural similarity, three-risk classifications of the eCura system and W-eCura score, when appropriately calibrated, may support decision-making regarding additional gastrectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704584What 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.