ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Blindly Trusting the Stage: The Therapeutic Consequences of Clinical Staging Inaccuracy in Gastric Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to quantify clinical staging accuracy rates and evaluated the consequences if treatment decisions were based solely on clinical stages. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 931 patients with nonmetastatic gastric cancer who underwent upfront radical gastrectomy, allowing the postoperative pathological stage (pTNM) to serve as the definitive gold standard. We compared concordance rates for T, N, and overall stages, and simulated guideline-directed treatment decisions on the basis of Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) criteria to calculate treatment error rates.
resultsClinical staging inaccuracy was significant: 38.9% (362/931) for T stage, 48.2% (449/931) for N stage, and 43.9% (409/931) for the comprehensive stage. Notably, 34.0% (317/931) of patients were understaged for N status, indicating a high prevalence of occult metastases. Consequently, blindly trusting clinical staging would have resulted in 17.4% (162/931) undertreatment and 28.1% (262/931) overtreatment. Specifically, 15.4% (6/39) of cT1aN0 cases that actually had deeper tumor invasion or lymph node metastasis would have received endoscopic treatment, thereby missing necessary lymphadenectomy. For clinically advanced cases (≥ cT2, n = 798), 26.8% (214/798) of patients eligible for upfront surgery would have received unnecessary neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
conclusionsClinical staging is markedly inaccurate, exposing patients to a high risk of treatment error, particularly undertreatment in clinically early cases and overtreatment in advanced cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126754What 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.