FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2005851051> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2005851051 endingPage "1975" @default.
• W2005851051 startingPage "1975" @default.
• W2005851051 abstract "To compare the prognostic assessment of lymph node ratio and absolute number based staging system for gastric cancer after D2 resection.The clinical, pathologic, and long-term follow-up data of 427 patients with gastric cancer that underwent D2 curative gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. The relationships between the metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR), log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS), and positive lymph nodes (pN) staging methods and the long-term prognoses of the patients were compared. In addition, the survival curves, accuracy, and homogeneity were compared with stratification to evaluate the prognostic assessment of the 3 methods when the number of tested lymph nodes was insufficient (< 10 and 10-15).MLR [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.401, P = 0.012], LODDS (HR = 1.012, P = 0.034), and pN (HR = 1.376, P = 0.005) were independent risk factors for gastric cancer patients. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that the prognostic accuracy of the 3 methods was comparable (P > 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis confirmed that MLR, LODDS, and pN were all positively correlated with the total number of tested lymph nodes. When the number of tested lymph node was < 10, the value of survival curves staged by MLR and LODDS was superior to those of pN staging. However, the difference in survival curves between adjacent stages was not significant. In addition, the survival rate of stage 4 patients using the MLR and LODDS staging methods was 26.7% and 27.3% with < 10 lymph node, respectively which were significantly higher than the survival rate of patients with > 15 tested lymph nodes (< 4%). The ROC curve showed that the accuracy of the prognostic assessment of MLR, LODDS, and pN staging methods was comparable (P > 0.05), and the area under the ROC curve of all 3 methods were increased progressively with the enhanced levels of examined lymph nodes. In addition, the homogeneity of the 3 methods in patients with ≤ 15 tested lymph nodes also showed no significant difference.Neither MLR or LODDS could reduce the staging bias. A sufficient number of tested lymph nodes is key to ensure an accurate prognosis for patients underwent D2 radical gastrectomy." @default.
• W2005851051 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2005851051 creator A5021899470 @default.
• W2005851051 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2005851051 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2005851051 title "Prognostic assessment of different metastatic lymph node staging methods for gastric cancer after D2 resection" @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1547314110 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1974572556 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1981504055 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1981825828 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1986521453 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W1993697572 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2032159569 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2037051585 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2038657991 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2040847112 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2047256945 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2049671177 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2058211391 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2059864409 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2060731557 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2071162741 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2079282239 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2087042460 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2088943471 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2091193150 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2101995865 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2116045246 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2131660531 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2133593152 @default.
• W2005851051 cites W2151651697 @default.
• W2005851051 doi "https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i12.1975" @default.
• W2005851051 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3613114" @default.
• W2005851051 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23569344" @default.
• W2005851051 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2005851051 type Work @default.
• W2005851051 sameAs 2005851051 @default.
• W2005851051 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512014 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512015 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512016 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512017 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512018 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512019 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512020 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512021 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512022 @default.
• W2005851051 countsByYear W20058510512023 @default.
• W2005851051 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2005851051 hasAuthorship W2005851051A5021899470 @default.
• W2005851051 hasBestOaLocation W20058510511 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C10515644 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C207103383 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C2779720271 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C2780470880 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C50382708 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C10515644 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C121608353 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C126322002 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C141071460 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C142724271 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C143998085 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C207103383 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C2779720271 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C2780470880 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C2780849966 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C44249647 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C50382708 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C58471807 @default.
• W2005851051 hasConceptScore W2005851051C71924100 @default.
• W2005851051 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2005851051 hasLocation W20058510511 @default.
• W2005851051 hasLocation W20058510512 @default.
• W2005851051 hasLocation W20058510513 @default.
• W2005851051 hasLocation W20058510514 @default.
• W2005851051 hasOpenAccess W2005851051 @default.
• W2005851051 hasPrimaryLocation W20058510511 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W1970121205 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2041343500 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2054798112 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2367118196 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2387015207 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2400658670 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2412448412 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2886996936 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2945363082 @default.
• W2005851051 hasRelatedWork W2994686985 @default.
• W2005851051 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W2005851051 isParatext "false" @default.

• next