Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Cancers · October 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: Early gastric cancer (EGC) lacks a predictive tool integrating endoscopic therapy (ET), gastrectomy (G), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) to support individualized risk stratification. This study compared cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) across the four treatment strategies and developed and externally validated a CSS prediction model incorporating oncologic characteristics and treatment strategy (presented as a nomogram and online tool). Methods: In a U.S. cohort (2017–2021), 1766 patients with EGC were classified into four treatments groups (ET, ET + CRT, G, G + CRT); an independent multicenter cohort (n = 1333) provided external validation. Kaplan–Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression assessed unadjusted differences, with confounding balanced by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW). Predictors were selected by univariable Cox, LASSO, Boruta, and best-subset regression; performance was evaluated by C-index, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. Results: After sIPTW adjustment, CSS did not differ significantly between ET and G (p = 0.856), whereas G was associated with better CSS than G + CRT (p < 0.05). In exploratory analyses of node-positive patients, G + CRT was associated with lower cancer-specific mortality than G alone (p < 0.05). The CSS prediction model was validated internally and externally (AUCs for 1-, 3-, and 5-year CSS: 0.769, 0.737, 0.717 internally; 0.943, 0.890, 0.872 externally). Conclusions: This is the first externally validated EGC CSS model integrating all four treatments. For eligible patients, ET was associated with survival comparable to G and superior to G + CRT; among node-positive patients, G + CRT was associated with lower mortality than G alone. The model supports individualized prediction and treatment decisions.