Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30643947›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Routinely staging gastric cancer with

John M Findlay, Stefan Antonowicz, Ashvina Segaran, Jihene El Kafsi, Alexa Zhang, Kevin M Bradley, Richard S Gillies, Nicholas D Maynard, Mark R Middleton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. [European journal of medical research · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Utility ofMedComm · 2025
    Article
  11. Impact ofJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development and validation of a machine learning-basedCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  15. Impact ofAnnals of surgical oncology · 2024
    Article
  16. Patient metabolic profile defined by liver and muscleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. PreoperativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John M FindlayOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. john.findlay@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-4086
Stefan AntonowiczOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Ashvina SegaranOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Jihene El KafsiOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Alexa ZhangOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Kevin M BradleyDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Richard S GilliesOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Nicholas D MaynardOxford OesophagoGastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.
Mark R MiddletonDepartment of Oncology, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Churchill Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is typically considered to have minimal yield in gastric cancer, and so is not consistently recommended by international guidelines. However, its yield is considerable in esophageal and junctional cancer, identifying unsuspected metastases and risk-stratifying patients using metabolic nodal stage (mN). We aimed to determine the contemporary utility of routine

methodsWe routinely stage patients with non-junctional gastric cancer with PET-CT, provided initial CT does not demonstrate unequivocal metastases. We performed a retrospective study of all such patients staged in our institution from January 2007 to July 2016. Our primary endpoint was detection of incurable disease. Our secondary endpoint was disease-free survival following gastrectomy. Decision theory, economic, and predictive models were generated.

resultsThe primary tumor was FDG-avid in 225/279 patients (80.6%). Seventy-two (25.8%) had FDG-avid nodes (resectable by D2 lymphadenectomy). This was not influenced by the Lauren classification. Unsuspected metastases were identified in 20 patients (7.2%). In 13 (4.7%), these would not have been otherwise identified. Decision theory and economic modeling supported routine PET-CT. Patients with FDG-avid nodes were more likely to have incurable disease (51.4% versus 15.5%; p < 0.001), and a worse prognosis if not: multivariate hazard ratio 2.19 (1.23-3.91; p = 0.008). Prognosis worsened with mN stage.

conclusionsPET-CT appears useful when used routinely for non-junctional gastric cancer, and should be considered in international recommendations. Any extra costs appear small and offset by avoiding futile investigations and radical treatment. mN stage identifies patients at risk of early recurrence and death. KEY POINTS: • PET-CT is typically not considered useful when staging gastric cancer. We describe a retrospective study of 279 patients routinely staged with PET-CT in the absence of metastases on CT. • The primary tumor was avid in 80% of patients. Twenty-five percent had resectable avid nodes. PET-CT identified previously unsuspected metastases in 7% of patients, which would likely not have been identified by conventional staging without PET-CT in 5%. These patients were much more likely to have avid nodes. • Beyond avoiding futile investigations and radical treatment in this 5%, we found patients with FDG-avid nodes (metabolic nodal stage, mN) to have a worse disease-free survival after gastrectomy.

Indexed as

GastrectomyAdenocarcinomaAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansIncidenceLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPostoperative PeriodFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsCancer stagingGastric cancerMetastasesPET-CTPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30643947
PMCPMC6443603
OpenAlexW2909839291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.