ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
The Impact of Institutional Volume of Endoscopic Resection on Early-Stage Gastric Cancer Outcomes.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) is increasingly utilized for early gastric cancer (EGC) due to its minimally invasive profile and comparable survival to gastrectomy (GR). However, concerns regarding oncologic efficacy and institutional volume impact persist. This study evaluates how ER volume quartiles impact outcomes and guideline adherence in EGC management.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the NCDB from 2010 to 2021 for patients with cT1aN0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma was performed comparing ER and GR. Primary outcomes were oncologic outcomes, rates of guideline adherence, and survival stratified by institutional ER volume tertiles (high, mid, low). Multivariable logistic, linear regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were used.
resultsA total of 1461 patients were analyzed; 937 (61.4%) undergoing ER and 524 (35.7%) GR. 57.5% of ER occurred in the latter half of the study time period, and increasing proportional ER utilization in EGC was observed over time. When stratified by ER volume tertiles, margin positivity (14.6% high volume vs. 13.7% mid vs. 15.5% low, p = 0.85), LVI rates (6.3% high vs. 9.5% mid vs. 9.7% low, p = 0.32), guideline discordant care (22.6% high vs. 22.3% mid vs. 24.3% low, p = 0.82), and survival (vs. low volume: high HR 1.04, p = 0.87; mid HR 1.27, p = 0.39) did not differ by institutional ER volume. High-volume centers preferentially used ER (OR 1.76, p < 0.01) compared to low and mid-volume centers. Guideline-discordant ER correlated with earlier years (OR 0.69, p = 0.03) but not institutional volume (vs. low volume: high OR 0.94, p = 0.76; mid OR 0.90, p = 0.61).
conclusionER for EGC is rapidly expanding across US institutions at all volume levels. ER achieves comparable oncological outcomes and survival independent of ER volume when guideline-concordant criteria are met, suggesting centralization may be unnecessary for EGC. The guideline discordant care rate of ~24% across all institutions highlights the need for adherence to ER criteria for EGC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.