Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Gastric Cancer: Apples Will Always Be Apples

Authors: Jaffer A, Ajani; Mariela A, Blum; Jeannelyn S, Estrella; Prajnan, Das; Keith F, Fournier;

Gastric Cancer: Apples Will Always Be Apples

Abstract

TO THE EDITOR: Macdonald’s editorial 1 is instructive and provides a great deal of depth and breadth on the subject of adjunctive therapy for gastric cancer. The issue raised is a subject of debate in the West and a resolution is not in sight. We want to emphasize three points that we believe are quite pertinent to this issue and need further discussion. The first point is related to the cross-study comparison of outcomes. It is quite likely that patient susceptibility (patient genetics) factors and carcinogenic forces that lead to the development of gastric cancer are different in different regions; however, the literature on this topic remains sparse and inconclusive. In addition to the assumption that Japanese gastric cancer is biologically different than western gastric cancer, the surgical techniques in the two regions are starkly different. This significantly limits the comparisons among studies. It may be safer to assume that western patients (such as those enrolled in the Intergroup 0116 trial 2 ) were simply grossly understaged for nodal stage. The median number of nodes examined in the ACTS-GC trial (Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of TS-1 for Gastric Cancer) 3 is likely to be considerably higher than in the Intergroup 0116 trial. There is a well-documented phenomenon of rampant nodal stage up-migration by carrying out a D2 dissection. 4 Finally, as more nodes are examined/removed, the better is the survival of patients with gastric cancer. 5 Thus, we argue that Western patients are understaged (and undertreated surgically) compared with Japanese patients who not only have adequate nodal staging but also potentially derive a survival benefit from the removal of negative nodes. We must consider these differences when comparing results across studies. Could we argue that a D2 dissection is better than D1 dissection? Yes and no. Yes, because you get proper nodal staging and you also remove more negative nodes and this seems to prolong survival. No, because the results of randomized trials in the West do not support D2 dissection, however none of the Western gastric cancer surgical trials was conducted ideally. The second point is regarding D2 dissection and its loose defini

Related Organizations
Keywords

Asian People, Stomach Neoplasms, Humans, Prognosis, White People

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    5
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
5
Average
Top 10%
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!