ArticleSurgery today2025
The albumin-myosteatosis gauge predicts the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 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.
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
purposeTo examine the prognostic utility of the albumin-myosteatosis gauge (AMG) in patients diagnosed with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical gastrectomy.
methodsData from 198 patients who underwent NAC and radical resection of LAGC at our center between January 2014 and December 2021 were analyzed. The AMG was calculated as the product of skeletal muscle radiodensity and albumin levels. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to determine the predictive utility of pre- and post-NAC AMG for the pathological response and survival.
resultsA higher AMG, regardless of whether measured before or after NAC, was associated with better performance status and higher pathological response rates (P < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, pre-NAC AMG, rather than post-NAC AMG, was an independent predictor of the pathological response (odds ratio 2.621 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.376-4.993]; P = 0.003). This predictive value was consistent across subgroups. Furthermore, post-NAC AMG, rather than pre-NAC AMG, was an independent prognostic factor for the overall survival (hazard ratio 0.611 [95% CI, 0.375-0.997]; P = 0.049) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.538 [95% CI 0.338-0.857]; P = 0.009). This prognostic utility was consistent across most subgroups, except for the obese subgroup.
conclusionsAMG may be a useful tool for predicting the response to NAC in patients diagnosed with LAGC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40580304What 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.