Systematic review of diagnostic tools for peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer-staging laparoscopy and its alternatives

Table 2 Tumour characteristics and computed tomography modality used

Ref.	Primary tumour location	Tumour histology	CT modality
Burbidge et al[28], 2013	-	Adenocarcinoma (220, 100%)	Multidetector CT with gastric staging protocol
Li et al[29], 2020	-	-	Unenhanced, two-phase dynamic enhanced CT
Davies et al[30], 1997	-	Adenocarcinoma (105, 100%)	Philips Tomoscan SR 7000 scanner (120 Kvp and 225-300 mAs), contrast enhanced spiral CT
Kim et al[31], 2009	-	Intestinal (162, 32.5%)	16-detector row (n = 427) or 64-detector row (n = 71) scanners
		Diffuse (336, 67.5%)
Stell et al[32], 1996	Proximal third (60, 58.3%)	Adenocarcinoma (103, 100%)	Contrast-enhanced CT using a GE model 9800 Hilight whole-body scanner (GEC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States)
	Body (24, 23.3%)
	Antrum (10, 9.7%)
	Body and antrum (6, 5.8%)
	Fundus (2, 1.9%)
	Linitis plastica (1, 1%)
Asencio et al[58], 1997	Upper third (12, 17%)	Adenocarcinoma (71, 100%)	Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT
	Middle third (21, 30%)
	Lower third (19, 27%)
Fujimura et al[59], 2002	Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma type 1 (1, 2.6%); type 2 (4, 10.3%); type 3 (14, 35.9%); type 4 (20, 51.3%)	Differentiated (16, 41%)	CT
		Undifferentiated (23, 59%)
Leeman et al[60], 2017	Proximal (7, 9.5%)	Adenocarcinoma (74, 100%)	Toshiba Aquilion 16 (16 slice), Siemens Somatom Sensation 16 (16 slice), Toshiba Aquilion Multi (4 slice)
	Body (23, 31.1%)
	Distal (10, 13.5%)
	Linitis plastica (6, 8.1%)

CT: Computed tomography.