That question took on renewed urgency at the 2024 meeting of the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which re-examined the comparative efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy across PD-L1 expression levels. The committee concluded that patients whose tumors express PD-L1 at a combined positive score or tumor area positivity score of 10 or higher derive the clearest benefit from PD-1 inhibitors, while those scoring below 1 show no meaningful improvement over chemotherapy alone. The large intermediate zone between those thresholds remains contested, and even in higher-expression groups certain populations, notably patients with liver metastases, appear relatively resistant to single-target immunotherapy. Against this backdrop, a new network meta-analysis published in Cancer Reports offers the first systematic indirect comparison of a different immunotherapy architecture: cadonilimab, a tetravalent bispecific antibody that blocks both PD-1 and CTLA-4 within a single molecule.

The research team, registered in the PROSPERO repository and conducted under PRISMA guidelines, searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception through December 31, 2024, supplementing the database results with conference abstracts from ASCO, ESMO and AACR and with FDA advisory committee documents. Their inclusion criteria were deliberately strict: only Phase III randomized controlled trials in pathologically confirmed, previously untreated, HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer qualified, and every experimental arm had to combine chemotherapy with either a single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 antibody or the anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody cadonilimab. From an initial pool of 4,089 publications, screening narrowed the field to eight trials that met all criteria: KEYNOTE-062, ATTRACTION-4, CheckMate-649, KEYNOTE-859, GEMSTONE-303, ORIENT-16, COMPASSION-15 and RATIONALE 305. Together these trials enrolled 7,127 patients, of whom 3,572 received chemotherapy plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor and 3,555 received chemotherapy with placebo.

Because no head-to-head trial has ever compared cadonilimab with a PD-(L)1 antibody, the investigators used a frequentist network meta-analysis, treating all platinum-fluoropyrimidine doublet backbones—XELOX, FOLFOX, SOX and fluorouracil-platinum—as a common chemotherapy comparator node, an approach supported by prior noninferiority trials and systematic reviews showing these regimens are clinically interchangeable. Overall survival, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, served as the primary endpoint, with progression-free survival and Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related and serious adverse events as secondary measures. Risk of bias was low across the included studies when assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and all trials were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Because the network was star-shaped, with cadonilimab connected to the PD-(L)1 inhibitors only through the shared chemotherapy node, formal inconsistency testing was not possible, a structural limitation the authors acknowledge openly.

The headline finding is striking. In the intention-to-treat population, every immunotherapy regimen outperformed chemotherapy alone, but cadonilimab plus chemotherapy delivered the largest survival gain, with a hazard ratio for overall survival of 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval 0.50 to 0.77), compared with hazard ratios of 0.75 to 0.82 for the five PD-(L)1 antibodies: sugemalimab, sintilimab, pembrolizumab, tislelizumab and nivolumab. In the indirect comparison against the pooled PD-(L)1 class, cadonilimab was associated with a statistically significant 22 percent reduction in the hazard of death (hazard ratio 0.78, 95 percent confidence interval 0.62 to 0.98), with essentially no heterogeneity among trials. Treatment ranking by P-score placed cadonilimab first with a probability score of 0.9586, well ahead of the rest of the field, and progression-free survival followed the same pattern, with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95 percent confidence interval 0.57 to 0.86) favoring the bispecific approach.

The mechanistic rationale for this advantage lies in cadonilimab’s unusual tetravalent design. Gastric adenocarcinomas commonly express the immune checkpoints PD-1 and CTLA-4, which tumors exploit to suppress T-cell responses, and preclinical work has long shown that blocking both pathways synergistically enhances antitumor immunity. Conventional combination immunotherapy with separate PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibodies, tested in the CheckMate 649 trial, was hampered by dose-limiting toxicity and failed to improve survival. Cadonilimab instead packs both binding specificities into one antibody that preferentially accumulates in tumor tissue where PD-1 and CTLA-4 are co-expressed, concentrating dual blockade at the tumor site while sparing normal tissue. That design, the authors argue, explains both the improved efficacy and the tolerability profile observed in COMPASSION-15.

Safety data appear to support that interpretation. Across the included trials, no statistically significant differences emerged between cadonilimab and PD-(L)1 inhibitors in Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (odds ratio 0.83, 95 percent confidence interval 0.54 to 1.28) or serious adverse events (odds ratio 0.89, 95 percent confidence interval 0.56 to 1.42). Egger’s tests for publication bias were non-significant across all endpoints, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses left the direction and significance of every primary result unchanged. Still, the authors caution that the confidence intervals around the safety comparisons are wide and rest on a limited number of trials, so a clinically meaningful difference in toxicity cannot be definitively excluded.

The most consequential findings emerge from exploratory subgroup analyses. In patients with low PD-L1 expression—combined positive scores below 10—the hazard ratio for overall survival favored cadonilimab over PD-(L)1 therapy with a point estimate of 0.77 (95 percent confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01), consistent across the CPS below 1 and below 5 cutoffs, while the single-target antibodies showed little or no benefit versus chemotherapy in the same strata. Even more pronounced was the liver metastasis subgroup, where cadonilimab reduced the hazard of death by 33 percent relative to PD-(L)1 inhibitors (hazard ratio 0.67, 95 percent confidence interval 0.49 to 0.93) and halved it relative to chemotherapy alone. This matters because liver metastases deplete peripheral T cells, erode intratumoral T-cell diversity and enrich immunosuppressive regulatory T cells and macrophages, creating a microenvironment that single-agent PD-1 blockade struggles to overcome; the authors propose that simultaneous CTLA-4 inhibition, which suppresses regulatory T cells, counters this biology more effectively. Statistically significant advantages for cadonilimab also appeared in male patients and those with an ECOG performance status of 1, subgroups in which androgen-receptor signaling and heightened systemic inflammation respectively promote T-cell exhaustion that dual checkpoint blockade may more fully reverse.

The authors are careful to frame these subgroup results as hypothesis-generating. All subgroup estimates derive from study-level aggregate data rather than individual patient information, which introduces the risk of ecological bias and limits control of within-trial confounding, and the PD-L1 analyses relied on different immunohistochemistry platforms, albeit assays with demonstrated substantial to excellent concordance in gastric cancer. Ranking analyses are sensitive to network structure and cannot by themselves establish superiority. Nevertheless, the overall picture is internally consistent: for patients whose tumors express high levels of PD-L1, all immunotherapy regimens deliver clear survival benefits over chemotherapy, but for the large populations left in clinical limbo—those with low PD-L1 expression, liver metastases, or intermediate expression where regulatory debate continues—this analysis suggests that a bispecific antibody harnessing two immune escape pathways simultaneously may be the preferable first-line partner for chemotherapy. The findings stop short of Level 1 evidence, and the authors call explicitly for prospective head-to-head trials, but they mark the first quantitative indication that bispecific checkpoint engineering could redraw the treatment algorithm for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Subject of Research: Indirect comparison of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, versus PD-(L)1 inhibitors as first-line therapy for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer

Article Title: Survival Outcomes With Cadonilimab Versus PD‐(L)1 Therapy in Front‐Line Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta‐Analysis

Article References: Yu, Z.-K., Yi, J.-H., Xue, J., Huang, Y.-C., Zhao, Y., Jiang, C., Yin, C.-X., Xia, B., Zhou, Y.-X., He, W.-Z., & Xia, L.-P. (2026). Survival Outcomes With Cadonilimab Versus PD ‐(L)1 Therapy in Front‐Line Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta‐Analysis. Cancer Reports, 9(9), Article e70672. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.70672

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.70672

Keywords: cadonilimab, gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, network meta-analysis, immune checkpoint inhibitors, PD-1, CTLA-4, bispecific antibody, PD-L1 expression, liver metastasis, overall survival, COMPASSION-15

Cancers of the stomach account for a significant health burden worldwide, with advanced gastric cancer often presenting a dire prognosis. The claudin family of proteins, particularly claudin 18 isoform 2, has been implicated in the pathogenesis of gastric cancer, making it an attractive target for therapeutic agents. Zolbetuximab operates by harnessing the immune system’s ability to recognize and attack cancer cells expressing this particular isoform, which is prevalent in a subset of gastric tumors. This targeted strategy is not only designed to enhance treatment efficacy but also to potentially minimize the adverse effects commonly associated with conventional chemotherapy regimens.

The study conducted by Shimozaki and colleagues represents an initial exploration into the practical application of zolbetuximab in a real-world setting, as opposed to the controlled environment of clinical trials. By analyzing patient outcomes, safety profiles, and treatment tolerability, the researchers sought to validate the findings of previous studies which underscored the promise of this combination therapy. The insights gleaned from real-world data are invaluable, as they provide a more nuanced understanding of how treatments perform across diverse patient populations, reflecting variations due to factors such as comorbidities, age, and environmental influences.

In the initial report, Shimozaki et al. presented a cohort of patients diagnosed with CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric cancer who received zolbetuximab in conjunction with chemotherapy. The researchers assessed not only the reduction in tumor burden but also the resultant quality of life improvements. Early findings indicated promising results, with a notable proportion of patients experiencing positive therapeutic outcomes, including reduced tumor size and extended progression-free survival. This information offers hope for enhancing treatment strategies where conventional therapies fall short.

Safety analyses are a vital component of understanding the broader impacts of any therapeutic regimen. The study meticulously documented adverse events tied to the zolbetuximab and chemotherapy combination, providing critical safety information that could guide clinical decision-making. Importantly, the data indicated that the profile of side effects was manageable and comparable to that of established chemotherapy regimens. These findings could encourage oncologists to consider zolbetuximab as a viable option for patients who may not tolerate existing treatments.

Moreover, the integration of zolbetuximab into treatment plans raises the question of how this therapy could fit within broader clinical protocols. Enhanced understanding of specific biomarkers, such as the presence of CLDN18.2, underpins the personalized medicine approach that is rapidly gaining traction within oncology. Tailoring treatments based on individual genetic and molecular characteristics could lead to improved patient outcomes and a more strategic allocation of healthcare resources.

The implications of this research extend beyond immediate patient care. It raises vital questions about the collaboration between pharmaceutical innovation and clinical research. Continued investment in targeted therapies like zolbetuximab will create pathways for additional studies that further our understanding of effective cancer treatments. The need for sustained funding in cancer research is crucial, as the landscape is filled with unexplored potential that warrants rigorous investigation.

As findings continue to emerge, it is essential for the broader medical community to engage with this data. Practitioners, researchers, and healthcare providers must collaborate to disseminate findings from studies like Shimozaki et al.’s, sharing insights that can inform treatment protocols and patient management strategies. Community engagement at conferences, workshops, and through professional journals will facilitate knowledge transfer and inspire further exploration into effective cancer management techniques.

In conclusion, the initial report from Shimozaki and colleagues serves as a landmark in our understanding of zolbetuximab’s role in treating advanced gastric cancer. The combination of this targeted therapy with chemotherapy presents an exciting frontier in oncology, offering hope to a patient population that has few effective options. While challenges remain, the results of this study highlight the ongoing need for innovative approaches to combat cancer, emphasizing the importance of integrating newer therapies into existing treatment paradigms. As future research unfolds, the collective focus must remain on translating scientific discoveries into tangible benefits for patients, ensuring that advancements in the field of oncology lead to improved survival rates and enhanced quality of life.

The journey of understanding and improving treatments for advanced gastric cancer is far from over; however, reports of initial successes with zolbetuximab signal a positive direction. As the medical field continues to evolve, we can anticipate further advancements that could revolutionize how we approach gastric cancer therapy, ultimately contributing to a future where such a diagnosis is manageable and survivable. The exploration of targeted therapies not only represents a scientific breakthrough but also embodies the hope of countless patients and families affected by this harsh disease.

Subject of Research: Advanced gastric cancer treatment with zolbetuximab

Article Title: Safety and efficacy of zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy for claudin 18 isoform 2-positive advanced gastric cancer: initial report of real-world experience.

Article References:

Shimozaki, K., Ooki, A., Fukuoka, S. et al. Safety and efficacy of zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy for claudin 18 isoform 2-positive advanced gastric cancer: initial report of real-world experience.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 152, 16 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-025-06406-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-025-06406-4

Keywords: Zolbetuximab, Advanced gastric cancer, CLDN18.2, Targeted therapy, Chemotherapy, Patient outcomes, Safety profile, Real-world experience, Oncology research, Personalized medicine

The study meticulously investigates the complex interplay between interleukin-33 (IL-33) and its receptor ST2, which has emerged as a critical factor in mediating immune responses. IL-33 is a member of the IL-1 cytokine family, primarily known for its role in promoting type 2 immune responses. However, its function extends into the realm of cancer biology, suggesting that it can manipulate the tumor microenvironment in ways that potentially enhance or inhibit cancer progression. This discovery is pivotal because it paints a more nuanced picture of how inflammatory cytokines like IL-33 contribute to the cancer landscape.

Among the therapies available for advanced gastric cancer, anti-PD1 treatments have gained considerable traction. PD-1, or programmed cell death protein 1, is a checkpoint protein on T cells that, when engaged, can inhibit immune responses against tumor cells. By blocking this interaction with antibodies, anti-PD1 therapies aim to reactivate the body’s immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. However, the response to these therapies is variable among patients, underscoring the need for biomarkers that can predict treatment efficacy.

The research conducted by Kudo-Saito et al. unravels the connection between the IL33-ST2 axis and the predictive potential for anti-PD1 therapy effectiveness. They conducted a series of experiments using patient-derived samples and animal models, establishing a correlation between high IL-33 levels and enhanced responsiveness to anti-PD1 treatment. This correlation provides a compelling rationale for further exploration into the IL33-ST2 axis as a stratification tool for patient selection in clinical settings, enabling more personalized approaches to cancer therapy.

One of the fascinating aspects of this research is the methodical approach employed to analyze the expression levels of IL-33 and ST2 in gastric cancer samples. Utilizing advanced immunohistochemistry techniques, researchers were able to visualize and quantify the distribution of these proteins within tumor tissues. The results consistently indicated that tumors expressing high IL-33 levels exhibited significant infiltration of CD8+ T cells, correlating with a favorable response to anti-PD1 therapies.

The team also explored the potential underlying mechanisms that may govern this relationship. It was identified that IL-33 can induce the expression of various chemokines and cytokines that may enhance T cell recruitment and activation within the tumor microenvironment. This is particularly important as the functional state of T cells can greatly influence the success of immunotherapy; hence, the IL33-ST2 axis may serve as a crucial regulatory pathway that can be targeted to boost therapeutic efficacy.

While the findings are compelling, they also raise important questions regarding the heterogeneity of gastric cancer. The different subtypes and molecular characteristics of gastric tumors can complicate treatment choices. The research demonstrates the significant role that the IL33-ST2 axis plays across these subtypes, hinting at its potential universal application as a biomarker. However, further studies are warranted to fully understand the dynamics of this relationship in various gastric cancer backgrounds, which may help tailor more effective treatment regimens.

The implications of this research extend beyond merely enhancing our understanding of gastric cancer biology. Identifying biomarkers such as the IL33-ST2 axis helps clinicians make more informed decisions, potentially leading to improved prognosis and management strategies. Personalized medicine hinges on the ability to predict responses based on individual patient characteristics, and studies like this propel the field toward that goal.

In light of the ongoing evolution of cancer therapies, integrating biomarker assessments into routine clinical practice is becoming increasingly feasible. The study’s findings encourage oncologists to consider the IL33-ST2 axis when evaluating treatment options for advanced gastric cancer patients, thus potentially improving response rates and patient outcomes. As the landscape of cancer treatment continues to shift towards precision medicine, research that links biomarkers with therapeutic efficacy is paramount.

The researchers aim to translate their findings into clinical protocols, paving the way for future investigations that can validate the IL33-ST2 axis’s role in diverse settings. This includes conducting larger cohort studies to confirm the association across larger populations and differing demographics. Furthermore, exploratory trials that manipulate the IL33-ST2 axis directly could uncover novel therapeutic strategies to enhance the efficacy of existing treatments.

It is vital to engage with the research community to discuss these findings and their implications thoroughly. Interdisciplinary collaborations between oncologists, immunologists, and researchers could foster innovative approaches to leverage the IL33-ST2 axis in clinical oncology settings. Furthermore, disseminating this information through conferences and publications will promote awareness and potentially catalyze further interest in the role of cytokines in cancer treatment.

Ultimately, these advancements herald a new era in advanced gastric cancer treatment, focusing on patient-centered care and tailored therapeutic strategies. As ongoing research elucidates the intricate connections between immune pathways and tumor biology, the hope is to redefine the standards of care, achieving higher efficacy and fewer side effects for patients battling this formidable disease.

This compelling investigation into the IL33-ST2 axis serves as a clarion call for the cancer research community. The future of oncology may well hinge on understanding and manipulating the body’s immune responses, with studies like this unlocking new strategies to combat advanced gastric cancer and potentially other malignancies. The continuous exploration of these pathways is essential not only for improving current treatments but also for paving the way for novel therapeutic interventions that can offer hope in the face of one of today’s most challenging health crises.

Subject of Research: Advanced Gastric Cancer and Immune Response

Article Title: IL33-ST2 axis is a predictive biomarker for anti-PD1 therapeutic efficacy in advanced gastric cancer.

Article References:

Kudo-Saito, C., Imazeki, H., Nagashima, K. et al. IL33-ST2 axis is a predictive biomarker for anti-PD1 therapeutic efficacy in advanced gastric cancer.
J Transl Med 23, 1125 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-025-07145-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: IL33-ST2 axis, anti-PD1 therapy, gastric cancer, biomarkers, oncology, immunotherapy, precision medicine, T cell response.

Gastric cancer, a malignancy noted for its aggressive nature and complex anatomical considerations, often necessitates radical surgical interventions post neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant therapy, which aims to reduce tumor burden before surgery, can influence tissue characteristics and subsequent surgical maneuverability. Hence, understanding how different surgical techniques fare under these nuanced conditions is critical. The researchers meticulously stratified patients into three cohorts based on the surgical technique: totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy, and open total gastrectomy, enabling a robust comparative analysis.

One of the noteworthy findings was the paradoxical observation that the totally laparoscopic group exhibited a longer operative time compared to the other two groups. This could initially be perceived as a disadvantage given surgical time often correlates with complications and recovery. However, the increased duration may reflect the inherent complexity and precision required during minimally invasive procedures, which demand advanced technical expertise and cautious dissection in the altered anatomical field post-chemotherapy. This nuanced detail underscores the evolving surgical learning curve associated with robotic and laparoscopic techniques.

Contrastingly, the study also revealed that the totally laparoscopic group experienced greater intraoperative blood loss compared to laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery patients. This finding invites intriguing questions regarding vascular control and tissue management during purely laparoscopic resections. Despite this, the rate of intraoperative blood transfusion did not significantly differ between groups, suggesting that hemodynamic stability was maintained across all surgical approaches, potentially due to effective anesthesiological protocols and surgical expertise.

A decisive advantage of the totally laparoscopic approach emerged in postoperative recovery metrics. Patients undergoing totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy demonstrated accelerated gastrointestinal function recovery—manifested in earlier postoperative bowel movements, defecations, and resumption of oral intake. These parameters are pivotal as they correlate strongly with reduced hospitalization durations, minimized catheter and drain-associated morbidities, and improved overall patient comfort and outcomes. Such benefits hold substantial promise in enhancing patient quality of life and reducing healthcare resource burdens.

Further examination of oncological efficacy revealed that the total number of lymph nodes dissected was significantly higher in the totally laparoscopic group. Lymphadenectomy extent is a critical determinant of accurate pathological staging and prognostication in gastric cancer. The ability of laparoscopy to facilitate meticulous lymph node harvest despite spatial limitations challenges the traditional notion that open surgeries offer superior oncological clearance. This is a vital affirmation for minimally invasive oncologic surgery proponents advocating for laparoscopic modalities.

Interestingly, critical parameters such as tumor staging, maximum tumor diameter, and number of positive lymph nodes harvested were statistically equivalent across all groups, implying comparable surgical radicality and cancer control. Similarly, postoperative complications measured by Clavien-Dindo classifications and readmission rates at both 30 and 90 days post-surgery did not diverge substantially among the surgical strategies, reinforcing the safety profile of minimally invasive techniques in carefully selected cases.

Hospitalization time, a significant economic and emotional factor for patients, also did not differ significantly among the groups. This outcome suggests that while total laparoscopic gastrectomy offers faster functional recovery, other variables—such as institutional practices, patient comorbidities, and rehabilitation protocols—may homogenize length of stay. It highlights the multifaceted nature of postoperative care beyond surgical technique alone.

Survival outcomes, arguably the most critical endpoint, were comparable across the board. There were no significant differences in overall or disease-free survival between the groups, indicating that the choice of surgical method does not compromise long-term oncologic prognosis in advanced gastric cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. This revelation may grant surgeons and patients greater flexibility in choosing less invasive methods without the fear of diminishing survival chances.

This study’s multicenter design and relatively large sample size bolster its external validity, offering a more generalized reflection of clinical realities across varied clinical settings. Additionally, the retrospective nature allows for real-world outcome analysis, although prospective randomized studies would be invaluable to corroborate these findings and further refine surgical guidelines.

It is important to contextualize these findings within the broader surgical oncology field, where minimally invasive techniques have steadily revolutionized management paradigms. This research illuminates that despite initial challenges such as longer operative times and technical demands, total laparoscopic gastrectomy champions faster postoperative recuperation without sacrificing oncological rigor.

The implications of earlier postoperative recovery extend beyond clinical indices; they resonate deeply with patient-centric care models emphasizing reduced morbidity, quicker return to daily activities, and psychological well-being. Early food intake and bowel function restoration can significantly lessen patient anxiety and improve nutritional statuses, crucial for prolonged recovery and adjuvant treatment tolerance.

Moreover, the higher lymph node yield observed with the fully laparoscopic approach may partially be attributed to enhanced visualization and magnification offered by laparoscopic optics, enabling surgeons to conduct more precise dissections. This technical superiority could redefine surgical expectations in complex gastrectomy cases previously thought to mandate open surgery.

While the surgical landscape continues to embrace robotic assistance and novel instrumentation, this study’s insights underscore the sufficiency of laparoscopy alone as a formidable tool, particularly in resource-limited centers where robotic platforms remain elusive. The study advocates for the inclusion of total laparoscopic techniques in standard surgical armamentaria for advanced gastric cancer when appropriate expertise is available.

It must also be acknowledged that patient selection criteria and surgical expertise inherently influence outcomes. As such, the absence of significant differences in survival and complication rates likely reflects optimal patient stratification and experienced surgical teams across participating centers. These factors highlight the centrality of multidisciplinary collaboration in oncologic care.

To summarize, this pioneering investigation confirms that while total laparoscopic total gastrectomy requires lengthier operative times, it offers incontrovertible benefits in enhanced postoperative recovery without compromising oncological safety or long-term survival. These findings may encourage more widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches as standard practice following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer care.

As gastric cancer treatment continues to evolve towards precision and personalized strategies, surgical innovation remains paramount. Studies such as this one not only validate emerging techniques but also provide a roadmap for balancing surgical efficiency, patient recovery, and oncologic integrity, fulfilling the overarching goal of improving outcomes in this formidable disease.

Subject of Research: Evaluation of short- and long-term outcomes among different surgical approaches (total laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open total gastrectomies) for advanced gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Article Title: Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes among total laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open total gastrectomies for advanced gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Article References:
Gao, X., Li, Z., Yuan, J. et al. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes among total laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open total gastrectomies for advanced gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 25, 1401 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14765-x

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14765-x