ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Gastric cancer and the TNT era: have we solved the timing question, or only redistributed the treatment?
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perioperative chemotherapy has become standard of care for locally advanced resectable gastric cancer, supported by landmark trials including MAGIC, FLOT4, PRODIGY, RESOLVE, and RESONANCE. However, a methodological question remains insufficiently addressed: to what extent can the observed benefits of perioperative treatment be attributed to an independent effect of treatment timing rather than to the consequences of delivering systemic therapy before surgery? Western and East Asian research traditions have approached this question differently. Western trials primarily tested whether adding a neoadjuvant component improves outcomes, whereas East Asian trials established the value of adjuvant therapy after high-quality D2 surgery. Consequently, most landmark trials were not designed to isolate timing as an independent variable, and even same-regimen comparisons may be influenced by differences in treatment completion, cumulative exposure, and patient selection. Despite this uncertainty, the field has shifted toward total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), redistributing more systemic treatment to the preoperative period. Depending on the protocol, TNT may represent treatment redistribution, intensification, or both. Although randomized trials have evaluated modified preoperative strategies, confirmatory phase III evidence specifically isolating treatment timing under comparable systemic treatment exposure remains lacking, leaving the independent oncological value of treatment sequence uncertain. Future trials should directly compare perioperative and postoperative delivery of the same systemic regimen under comparable planned cumulative treatment exposure while incorporating molecular stratification. Rather than assuming earlier systemic treatment is superior, studies should determine whether it provides an independent oncological advantage beyond improved treatment completion and patient selection, and whether this effect varies across biological subgroups.
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.