ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2013
Comparison of MRI and endoscope ultrasound detection in preoperative T/N staging of gastric cancer.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The utility of MRI for pre-operative T and N staging of gastric carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2015Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Blindly Trusting the Stage: The Therapeutic Consequences of Clinical Staging Inaccuracy in Gastric Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Timing to Surgery and Lymph Node Upstaging in Gastric Cancer: An NCDB Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Potential survival benefits of open over laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients beyond three years after surgery: result from multicenter in-depth analysis based on propensity matching.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Effect of Preoperative Tumor Under-Staging on the Long-term Survival of Patients Undergoing Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.Cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Differentiating T1a-T1b from T2 in gastric cancer lesions with three different measurement approaches based on contrast-enhanced T1W imaging at 3.0 T.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Diagnostic performance in T staging for patients with esophagogastric junction cancer using high-resolution MRI: a comparison with conventional MRI at 3 tesla.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2019Article
- Imaging strategies in the management of gastric cancer: current role and future potential of MRI.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Comparison of DWI andOncotarget · 2017Article
- Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression/T2-weighted image fusion of gastrointestinal cancers.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2016Article
- National Trends in Utilization of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Gastric Cancer: a SEER-Medicare Study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric cancer is a common malignancy and cause of mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) detection in preoperative clinical T/N staging in gastric cancer. Thirty-eight patients diagnosed with gastric cancer by gastroscopy and pathological examination were included in the study. All 38 patients underwent MRI and EUS detection prior to surgery. The accuracy of MRI, EUS and MRI+EUS was evaluated according to postoperative pathological staging. Results identified the accuracy of EUS, MRI and EUS+MRI in T clinical staging to be 86.64, 73.68 and 89.47%, respectively (MRI vs. EUS+MRI, P=0.035), while the accuracy for N clinical staging was 65.78, 68.42 and 71.05%, respectively (P>0.05). The accuracy rate in EUS and EUS+MRI detection in N0 stage was markedly higher compared with that in MRI (100 vs. 86.67%, P=0.032), whereas the rate in EUS detection in N2 stage was lower compared with that in MRI and EUS+MRI (45.45 vs. 54.54%, P=0.021). Thus, both MRI and EUS had a higher accuracy in preoperative T/N staging. Additionally, the accuracy rate was improved significantly when the two procedures were combined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.