ArticleThe oncologist2026
Re-evaluating the role of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resected gastric cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative chemotherapy is the standard of care for resectable gastric cancer (GC), but many patients do not complete adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). It remains unclear whether AC following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) improves survival. We sought to assess differences in survival between patients with resectable GC who did vs did not receive AC after NAC and surgery.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center to evaluate survival differences in patients who did vs did not receive AC. Patients with resected GC who received NAC were included.
resultsOf 339 patients, 264 (78%) received AC. There were no significant differences in median event-free survival (EFS) (7.0 vs. 7.5 years, P = .089) or overall survival (OS) (10 vs. 7.8 years, P = .11) between AC and non-AC groups. In the node-negative (ypN-) cohort (n = 169), there was no association between AC receipt and EFS (12 vs. 10 years, P = .7) or OS (12 vs. 10 years, P = .5). In the node-positive (ypN+) cohort (n = 170), AC receipt was associated with longer EFS (4.8 vs. 2.7 years, P = .031) but not OS (5.5 vs. 2.8 years, P = .071). High-risk patients based on lymph node ratio (LNR > 0.0685; n = 112) who received AC (n = 87; 78%) had longer EFS (P = .014) and OS (P = .033). Finally, AC receipt was associated with longer EFS (P = .014) and OS (P = .024) in those with incomplete/poor response to NAC (Becker tumor regression grade [TRG] 2-3).
conclusionsAC following NAC was not associated with improved survival in resected ypN- GC. High LNR identified a ypN + subgroup in which AC receipt was associated with longer EFS and OS. In patients with incomplete/poor response to NAC (TRG 2-3), AC receipt was associated with longer EFS and OS.
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.