全球胃癌治疗指南的综合比较综述

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu
{"title":"全球胃癌治疗指南的综合比较综述","authors":"Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu","doi":"10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu\",\"doi\":\"10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

各国在胃癌的治疗专长和研究成果方面存在差异;因此,根据证据和医疗情况,治疗指南各不相同。必须对每个国家的指导方针进行全面和比较的审查,以了解各国之间的相同点和不同点。基于证据水平和推荐等级,我们回顾并比较了五种胃癌治疗指南,包括内镜、手术、围手术期和姑息性全身治疗,以及每个指南的术后随访策略。韩国、中国和欧洲的指南为这些建议提供了证据和分级。美国指南建议了证据和共识的类别。日本的指南只提出了系统性治疗的证据和建议。韩国和日本的指南详细描述了内窥镜治疗、手术和淋巴结切除术。中国、美国和欧洲的指南更集中地考虑了围手术期化疗。特别是,每个指南推荐的化疗适应症和方案略有不同。考虑到各自的医疗情况,每个指南在采用证据方面存在一定的差异,这导致了异质的建议。本综述将有助于医务人员全面了解各国胃癌治疗指南在证据和建议方面的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines
Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信