↓ Skip to main content

Staging for Remnant Gastric Cancer: The Metastatic Lymph Node Ratio vs. the UICC 7th Edition System

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Staging for Remnant Gastric Cancer: The Metastatic Lymph Node Ratio vs. the UICC 7th Edition System
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5390-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masatoshi Nakagawa, Yoon Young Choi, Ji Yeong An, Jung Hwa Hong, Jong Won Kim, Hyung-Il Kim, Jae-Ho Cheong, Woo Jin Hyung, Seung Ho Choi, Sung Hoon Noh

Abstract

Unlike primary gastric cancer, a remnant gastric cancer (RGC) staging system has not been established. The retrieved lymph node counts (RLN) in RGC is generally lower than that in primary gastric cancer, so it is unclear whether positive lymph node count reflects the RGC patient's survival. Therefore, the lymph node ratio (LR) may be more useful for RGC staging than the 7th edition UICC classification. Patients (n = 191) who underwent gastrectomy with curative intent for RGC participated in this study. LR was classified as LR = 0, 0 < LR ≤ 0.1, 0.1 < LR ≤ 0.4, and 0.4 < LR. Modified TNM staging (mTNM-LR) was established by combining the pT (7th UICC) with LR. The predictive accuracy of LR and mTNM-LR was compared with that of the pN (7th UICC) and TNM (7th UICC), respectively. The mean RLN was 14.4 and that of 128 patients (67 %) was ≤15. Fifty-one patients (27 %) had metastatic lymph nodes. Multivariable analyses revealed that pT (7th UICC) (p < 0.001) and pN (7th UICC) (p = 0.001), but not LR, were independent risk factors for overall survival. The overall c-index (95 % confidence interval) of each staging system was as follows: pN (7th UICC): 0.700 (0.627-0.771); LR: 0.701 (0.627-0.775), TNM (7th UICC): 0.808 (0.761-0.870); mTNM-LR: 0.807 (0.737-0.871). There were no significant differences in the predictive accuracy between pN (7th UICC) and LR, and TNM (7th UICC) and mTNM-LR. LR was not superior to pN (7th UICC). Thus, the 7th edition UICC classification is a practical and reliable staging system for RGC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Unspecified 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,096,882
of 12,419,165 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#752
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,373
of 260,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#56
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.