ReviewJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Staging: Progress and Persistent Challenges.
Review in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Staging laparoscopy with peritoneal lavage has become a cornerstone of gastric cancer staging, particularly for identifying occult peritoneal disease. Recent Dutch and European Delphi consensus studies have now established broad agreement on indications for staging laparoscopy, systematic peritoneal inspection, and technical aspects of peritoneal lavage. However, while consensus on how to perform the procedure has advanced substantially, there remains striking heterogeneity in how peritoneal lavage cytology specimens are handled and interpreted by pathology laboratories. A recent multicenter Japanese survey demonstrated more than a tenfold variation in cytology positivity rates across high-volume centres, closely associated with differences in laboratory methodology. Similar variability has been acknowledged in European centres but remains largely unquantified. This diagnostic inconsistency has become increasingly consequential as novel treatment strategies for cytology-positive and low-volume peritoneal disease, such as Normothermic Intraperitoneal and Systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC, and pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), enter clinical practice. Failure to address cytological heterogeneity risks misclassification, inappropriate treatment allocation, and inequitable access to emerging therapies. Future efforts should focus on extending consensus into the pathology laboratory and exploring molecular adjuncts, including peritoneal cell-free DNA, to reduce diagnostic variability.
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.