ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Preoperative diagnosis of tumor depth in gastric cancer using transabdominal ultrasonography compared to using endoscopy and computed tomography.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- SATU-net: a shadow adaptive tracing U-net for gastric cavity segmentation based on the principle of ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An integrated AI-enabled system using One Class Twin Cross Learning for early gastric cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Novel computed tomography-based nomograms for the pretherapeutic prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 and oxaliplatin with or without the addition of docetaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn accurate evaluation method for preoperative diagnosis has not yet been established in patients with gastric cancer (GC), though it is essential for optimal treatment. Current standard modalities are endoscopy and contrast computed tomography (CT). In this study, we investigated the efficacy and limitations of transabdominal ultrasonography (TUS) for the assessment of tumor invasion.
methodsWe enrolled 178 consecutive patients with GC evaluated by TUS, endoscopy, and contrast CT before gastrectomy. For the TUS examination, patients ingested water to fill their stomachs. The clinical staging determined using these modalities was compared to the pathological staging.
resultsThe overall accuracy of clinical T staging using TUS was 47.8% (pT1a: 5.8% (2/35); pT1b: 58.8% (20/35); pT2: 69.6% (16/23); pT3: 66.7% (22/33); pT4a: 46% (23/50); pT4b: 100% (2/2)). Using endoscopy, contrast CT, and TUS, the overall accuracy was 60.7%. The accuracy of TUS was associated with the tumor region (U region: 50% (14/28); M: 31.8% (14/44); L: 53.7% (57/106); P = 0.048), but not with the cross-sectional parts (P = 0.49). Multivariate analysis identified inaccurate TUS as independently correlating with tumor region (M vs. U/L, odds ratio (OR) = 3.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-6.87; P = 0.005) and pT (pT1 vs. pT2-4, OR = 3.00, 95%CI 1.31-6.87; P = 0.009).
conclusionsThe present study demonstrated the importance of TUS in evaluating GC. Thus, TUS may be useful for clinical T staging in certain circumstances, leading to treatment optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36690895What 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.