Purpose: The discrepancy between preoperative and final pathological staging has been a long-standing challenge for the application of clinical trials or appropriate treatment options. This study aimed to demonstrate the accuracy of preoperative staging of locally advanced gastric cancer using data from a large-scale randomized clinical trial. Materials and methods: Of the 1050 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, 26 were excluded due to withdrawal of consent (n = 20) or non-surgery (n = 6). The clinical and pathological staging was compared. Risk factor analysis for underestimation was performed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Regarding T staging by computed tomography, accuracy rates were 74.48, 61.62, 58.56, and 85.16% for T1, T2, T3 and T4a, respectively. Multivariate analysis for underestimation of T staging revealed that younger age, ulcerative gross type, circular location, larger tumor size, and undifferentiated histology were independent risk factors. Regarding nodal status estimation, 54.9% of patients with clinical N0 disease were pathologic N0, and 36.4% of patients were revealed to have pathologic N0 among clinical node-positive patients. The percentage of metastasis involvement at the D1, D1+, and D2 lymph node stations significantly increased with the advanced clinical N stage. Among all patients, 29 (2.8%), including 26 with peritoneal seeding, exhibited distant metastases. Conclusions: Estimating the exact pathologic staging remains challenging. A thorough evaluation is mandatory before treatment selection or trial enrollment. Moreover, we need to set a sufficient case number when we design the clinical trial considering the stage migration.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by Korean Government (2022R1C1C1011459). Supported by grants from the National R / D Program for Cancer Control, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (1320270) and Ethicon Endo-Surgery and by Johnson / Johnson Company and Jeil Pharmaceutical.
2022 Kim, Hyung, Park, Lee, An, Kim, Kim, Ryu, Hur, Kim, Kong, Kim, Park, Ryu, Kim, Kim, Lee, Yang, Han and Kim.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes