ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Routinely staging gastric cancer with
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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric cancer causing Schnitzler's metastasis: case report and systematic review of the features.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Pooled it
- Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline).Journal of gastric cancer · 2025Guideline
- [European journal of medical research · 2023Pooled it
- Association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Development and validation of a nomogram for the non-invasive prediction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression in gastric adenocarcinoma: anJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- New Functions of Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Gastric Cancer: From Molecular Processes to Potential Treatments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A deep learning-based digital biopsy for predicting early recurrence in gastric cancer.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Evolving Paradigms in Gastric Cancer Staging: From Conventional Imaging to Advanced MRI and Artificial Intelligence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Selecting Targets for Molecular Imaging of Gastric Cancer: An Immunohistochemical Evaluation.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Article
- Clinical Utility ofMedComm · 2025Article
- Impact ofJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Transcriptomics-Based Liquid Biopsy for Early Detection of Recurrence in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach: discrimination from conventional gastric adenocarcinoma with a computed tomography-based radiomics nomogram.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-basedCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Impact ofAnnals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Patient metabolic profile defined by liver and muscleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Article
- Imaging in Gastric Cancer: Current Practice and Future Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- PreoperativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A combined approach for individualized lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer patients.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2023Article
- Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach.Journal of gastric cancer · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.