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

Table 1 Patient demographics

Ref.	Total number of patients	Mean age in years (range)	Gender ratio (M:F)
Burbidge et al[28], 2013	220	69 (41-96)	136:84
Li et al[29], 2020	385	-	-
Davies et al[30], 1997	105	69 (33-92)	68:37
Kim et al[31], 2009	498	59.6 (27-89)	332:166
Stell et al[32], 1996	103	65 (33-91)	68:35
Asencio et al[58], 1997	71	65.8 (47-81)	43:27
Fujimura et al[59], 2002	39	(26-80)	17:22
Leeman et al[60], 2017	74	67.6 (29-84)	54:20

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.

Table 3 Statistical results of computed tomography and staging laparoscopy

Ref.	Sensitivity		Specificity		Positive predictive value		Negative predictive value
	CT	Staging laparoscopy	CT	Staging laparoscopy	CT	Staging laparoscopy	CT	Staging laparoscopy
Burbidge et al[28], 2013	25%	-	99%	-	83%	-	82%	-
Li et al[29], 2020	87.5%	-	76.4%	-	31.8%	-	-	-
Davies et al[30], 1997	71%	-	93%	-	67%	-	94%	-
Kim et al[31], 2009	28.3%	-	98.9%	-	-	-	-	-
Asencio et al[58], 1997	0%	88.9%	-	100%	-	100%	-	95.5%
Fujimura et al[59], 2002	38%	86%	100%	100%	67%	92%	-	-
Leeman et al[60], 2017	58.8%	94.1%	89.6%	100%	66.7%	100%	86%	98%
					False positives		False negatives
Stell et al[32], 1996	8%	69%	100%	100%	0%	0%	12%	4%

CT: Computed tomography.

Table 4 Patient demographics

Modality	Ref.	Total number of patients	Mean age in years (range)	Gender ratio (M:F)
PET	Lim et al[11], 2006	17	51.4 (32-74)	12:5
	Sim et al[33], 2009	52	62 (median) (33-80)	43:9
	Turlakow et al[34], 2003	88	54 (28-84)	50:38
	Perlaza et al[36], 2018	50	65.7 ± 12.1	30:20
	Kim et al[37], 2017	60	60.6 (29-80)	16:44
	Chen et al[38], 2005	68	54.8 (28-81)	49:19
	Kim et al[39], 2011	139	61.5 ± 11.6	88:51
MRI	Lin et al[35], 2021	62 (11 gastric)	56 ± 12 (54 ± 13 in gastric)	20:42 (6:5 in gastric)
	De Vuysere et al[40], 2021	32	(29-85)	22:10

PET: Positron emission tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 5 Tumour characteristics and computed tomography, positron emission tomography or magnetic resonance imaging modality used

Modality	Ref.	Tumour histology	Specific scanner used
			CT	PET/MRI
PET	Lim et al[11], 2006	Moderate differentiation (n = 2)	Single-section spiral CT, HiSpeed CT/I or multi-detector CT scanning fourdetector row, LightSpeed Plus	GE advance PET scanner or Philips Allegro PET system
		Mixed type of moderate and poor differentiation (n = 2)
		Signet cell differentiation (n = 4)
		Poor differentiation (n = 9)
	Sim et al[33], 2009	Adenocarcinoma (n = 47)	Not mentioned	PET/CT system, Philips Gemini, DA best
		Signet ring cell (n = 4)
		Unknown (n = 1)
	Turlakow et al[34], 2003	Gastric (n = 48)	Not mentioned	PET
		Ovarian (n = 13)
		Adrenocortical (n = 6)
		Mesothelioma (n = 21)
	Perlaza et al[36], 2018	Well-differentiated (n = 4)	Somatom sensation 64	Hybrid PET/CT biograph mCT 64S
		Moderately differentiated (n = 20)
		Poorly differentiated (n = 26)
	Kim et al[37], 2017	Adenocarcinoma (n = 51)	16 or 64-detector row CT scanner, LightSpeed 16 or LightSpeed VCT	Discovery ST PET/CT system
		Signet ring cell carcinoma (n = 5)
		Mucinous carcinoma (n = 4)
	Chen et al[38], 2005	Adenocarcinoma (n = 13)	Somatom Plus-S or Tomoscan 310 or LightSpeed Plus	GE Advance
		Undifferentiated adenocarcinoma (n = 55)
	Kim et al[39], 2011	Adenocarcinoma (n = 117)	Multi-detector row CT scanners, Somatom Volume Zoom	Cyclotron RDS-111
		Signet ring cell carcinoma (n = 19)
		Mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 1)
		Others (n = 2)
MRI	Lin et al[35], 2021	Appendiceal (n = 6)	Somatom sensation 64, Aquilion 64 or Aquilion ONE	MRI
		Colon (n = 25)
		Ovarian (n = 20)
		Gastric (n = 11)
	De Vuysere et al[40], 2021	Adenocarcinoma (n = 9)	Somatom Force	Aera 1.5 T scanner
		Adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell differentiation (n = 9)

CT: Computed tomography; PET: Positron emission tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 6 Statistical results of computed tomography and positron emission tomography

Ref.	Sensitivity		Specificity		Positive predictive value		Negative predictive value		Accuracy		True positive/true negative		False positive/false negative
	CT	PET	CT	PET	CT	PET	CT	PET	CT	PET	CT	PET	CT	PET
Lim et al[11], 2006	96.5%	35.3%	91.6%	98.9%	-	-	-	-	89.3%	89.3%	13/87	6/94	8/4	1/11
Sim et al[33], 2009	86.6%	46.6%	91.9%	94.2%	82.3%	80%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Turlakow et al[34], 2003	43%	57%	-	-	100%	93%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Perlaza et al[36], 2018	64%	68%	93%	100%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Kim et al[37], 2017	96%	50%	100%	100%	100%	100%	99%	89%	99%	90%	-	-	-	-
Chen et al[38], 2005	80%	30%	91%	98%	-	-	-	-	89%	88%	-	-	-	-
Kim et al[39], 2011	63.6%	18.2%	97.7%	100%	-	-	-	-	95%	93.5%	-	-	-	-

CT: Computed tomography; PET: Positron emission tomography.

Table 7 Statistical results of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

Ref.	Sensitivity		Specificity		Positive predictive value		Negative predictive value		Accuracy		Precision
	CT	MRI	CT	MRI	CT	MRI	CT	MRI	CT	MRI	CT	MRI
Lin et al[35], 2021	41.4%	69.0%	93.9%	81.9%	-	-	-	-	69.4%	75.8%	85.7%	77.4%
De Vuysere et al[40], 2021	51.4%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	31.3%	100%	38.9%	100%	-	-

CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.