ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
A Multicenter Collaborative Survey of Peritoneal Lavage Cytology in Gastric Cancer Surgery: Interinstitutional Methodological Differences and Positive Rate.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From operating room to pathology report: Delphi consensus on pathological assessment of peritoneal cytology and biopsies in staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Staging: Progress and Persistent Challenges.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to clarify the current status of cytological methodologies in high-volume gastric cancer centers and explore the relationship between methodology and positive rates. Background: International standards for peritoneal lavage cytological methods for collection, handling, and cytopreparation in gastric cancer have not been established yet. Methods: A questionnaire survey on cytological methodology was conducted in 61 institutions within the Japan Clinical Oncology Group in 2024. Aggregated data from patients with clinical T3 to T4 gastric cancer with cytology from 2017 to 2022 were collected to calculate positivity rates in each institution for the comparison of methodologies between institutions with high- and low-positivity rates. Results: Thirty-three institutions (64%) collected samples from 2 sites, primarily from the Douglas pouch and left subphrenic area. Fifty-eight institutions (95%) used ≤100 mL of normal saline for injection, and 51 (87%) performed intraoperative rapid cytology. Twenty-five institutions (41%) used additives in samples. Scraping glass slides and centrifugal direct smears were predominant cytopreparation methods in 31 (51%) and 22 (36%) institutions, respectively, and ethanol fixation was employed in 53 (87%). In 61 institutions (11,367 patients), the median cytological positivity rate for clinical T3 to T4 gastric cancer was 8.5% (2.1%-28.3%). Institutions with higher positivity rates more often employed ethanol fixation (97% vs. 77%, Conclusions: Even among Japanese high-volume centers, cytological methodologies for gastric cancer lack uniformity, thereby leading to substantial variability in the proportion of positive cytology.
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.