ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Age-Related Differences in Gastric Adenocarcinoma from 2000-2020: A SEER Database Analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world insights into young-onset gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an all-Ireland population-based cancer registry analysis.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGastric cancer (GC) is the 5th most common malignancy worldwide. Adenocarcinoma accounts for 95% of all GC. While most cases of gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) arise in older age males, a significant proportion of biological disparity exists between different ages. In this study, we aim to compare the demographics and prognostic outcomes of different ages of patients with GAC.
methodsThis retrospective study utilized the GAC cases abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program's 17 registries dataset from 2000 to 2020. Cases were divided into different age group brackets to comparatively explore characteristics of GAC.
resultsA total of 103,674 cases were identified. The median age was 69 years, with a significant proportion 39.7% (n = 41,154) falling within the 66-80 age bracket cases. Female proportions were higher in the ≤ 35 years age group 47.2% (n = 960) and ≥ 81 years age group 45.7% (n = 9,695). About 45.1% (n = 916) of ≤ 35 years age group cases were Hispanic, while 60% (n = 12,715) of ≥ 81 years age group cases were non-Hispanic White. Ages between 51-65 and 66-80 years had higher proportions of liver metastasis 17% and 16% than their younger and older peers. Age ≤ 35 years cases are more likely to present at cardia 20.5%. Male gender had the worst survival across all age groups, with the worst in the ≤ 35 age group hazard ratio (H.R) 1.22(1.007 - 1.250 p < 0.001). Black had the worst survival across all ages, with the worst in the ≤ 35 years age group H.R 1.405 (1.164 - 1.696 p < 0.001). When plotted against other races in each age group, Hispanics had poor survival at young ages H.R 1.224 (1.069 - 1.401) and superior survival at older ages, with H.R 0.944 (0.902 - 0.987) in the ≥ 81 age group. Tumors located in the greater curvature and overlapping lesions demonstrated worse prognosis compared to cardia. Conversely, tumors in the pylorus and lesser curvature generally exhibited better prognosis.
conclusionIn the United States GAC predominantly affects older adults, but early-onset cases exhibit aggressive histologies and poor survival, particularly more common in Hispanics. Black individuals face the worst survival outcomes across all age groups. Gender inclination towards males shrinks at the extremes of ages. At different age brackets, the demographics and prognosis changes, necessitating customized interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40080286What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.