ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Perforated Gastric Cancer: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Surgical Management Strategies.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gastric cancer complicated by free perforation is a rare but life-threatening oncological emergency, accounting for 0.3% ~ 3.9% of all gastric cancer cases. This review summarizes current evidence on the epidemiology, diagnosis, surgical management, and prognostic determinants of perforated gastric cancer, with emphasis on stage-adapted treatment strategies. It should be noted, however, that the available evidence is derived exclusively from retrospective studies, and all recommendations should be interpreted in the context of this inherent limitation. Relevant studies addressing perforation patterns, perioperative outcomes, one-stage versus two-stage gastrectomy, repair-only approaches, and management of metastatic disease were reviewed. Perforation typically arises from tumors located on the anterior wall or greater curvature, where transmural invasion creates direct communication with the peritoneal cavity, resulting in diffuse peritonitis and substantial postoperative mortality. Available pooled evidence suggests that radical resection, when oncologically and physiologically feasible, is associated with better survival than repair-only strategies. Comparative retrospective data suggest that two-stage gastrectomy may be associated with higher R0 resection rates and lower in-hospital mortality compared with emergency one-stage resection, without compromising long-term survival when curative resection is ultimately achieved; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the exclusively retrospective evidence base and the inherent patient selection bias in all published comparisons. In patients with stage IV disease or confirmed distant metastases, stomach-preserving source control followed by systemic chemotherapy may be a rational alternative. Prognosis is primarily determined by TNM stage and R0 resection status, similar to non-perforated gastric cancer. Individualized treatment based on tumor stage, resectability, peritoneal contamination, and physiological reserve is essential.
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.