ArticleSurgery today2026
Spatial discordance of claudin18.2 in gastric cancer: clinical implications for patient selection in Zolbetuximab therapy.
Article in Surgery today, 2026. 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.
- Intra- and intertumoral discordance of Claudin-18.2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Resistance mechanisms and countermeasures in CLDN18.2-positive tumors: from molecular networks to clinical practice.Frontiers in oncology · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeZolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against claudin18.2 (CLDN18.2), shows promise in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. However, as treatment relies on CLDN18.2 expression in primary tumors, concordance with metastatic lesions remains unclear.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 50 patients with advanced gastric cancer. CLDN18.2 expression was assessed immunohistochemically in paired primary and metastatic lesions, being defined as positive when ≥ 75% of tumor cells showed moderate to strong membranous staining. Clinicopathological factors associated with the discordance were also evaluated.
resultsCLDN18.2 positivity was found in 36% of primary tumors and 18% of metastatic lesions. Concordance between sites was 78%, varying by route: 100% in hematogenous lesions, 80% in lymphatic lesions, and 72% in peritoneal lesions. In discordant cases, 89% showed loss of expression in metastases despite primary positivity, particularly in peritoneal lesions. A larger tumor size and nodal involvement (≥ N2) were significantly associated with discordance (p = 0.020 and p = 0.004, respectively). A receiver operating characteristic analysis identified 90 mm as the optimal cutoff (AUC = 0.73). A flowchart of tumor size and nodal status showed an 81.8% discordance when both were present.
conclusionsCLDN18.2 expression often differs between primary and metastatic sites, particularly with peritoneal spread. Tumor size and nodal status may help identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from primary tumor-based profiling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41324669What 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.