Staging and Follow-up of Gastric Cancer

Variant: 1 Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen endoscopic	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for locoregional or distant metastases.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen endoscopic	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Priya R. Bhosale, MD^a; Mayur K. Virarkar, MD^b; Kevin J. Chang, MD^c; Brooks D. Cash, MD^d; Victoria Chernyak, MD, MS^e; Ayushi Gupta, MD^f; Alex C. Kim, MD, PhD^g; Samuel J. Klempner, MD^h; Michael Magnetta, MDⁱ; David Schultz, MD^j; William Small Jr., MD^k; Lilja B. Solnes, MD, MBA^l; Richelle Williams, MD^m; Joseph H. Yacoub, MDⁿ; Elena K. Korngold, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
D. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
F. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
H. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
K. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
L. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
M. Radiography abdomen

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
N. US abdomen

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
O. US abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Adult. Suspected gastric adenocarcinoma. Initial imaging.
P. US abdomen endoscopic

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
D. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
F. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
H. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
K. Radiography abdomen

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
L. US abdomen

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
M. US abdomen and pelvis

Variant 2: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Staging for distant metastases.
N. US abdomen endoscopic

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
D. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
F. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
H. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
K. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
L. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
M. Radiography abdomen

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
N. US abdomen

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
O. US abdomen and pelvis

Variant 3: Adult. Gastric adenocarcinoma. Posttreatment evaluation.
P. US abdomen endoscopic

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
D. CT chest with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
F. CT chest without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
H. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
K. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
L. MRI abdomen without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
M. Radiography abdomen

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
N. US abdomen

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
O. US abdomen and pelvis

Variant 4: Adult. Surveillance of gastric adenocarcinoma.
P. US abdomen endoscopic

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:12-49.
2.	Oliveira C, Pinheiro H, Figueiredo J, Seruca R, Carneiro F. Familial gastric cancer: genetic susceptibility, pathology, and implications for management. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e60-70.
3.	Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11-20.
4.	Sando AD, Fougner R, Gronbech JE, Bringeland EA. The value of restaging CT following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer. A population-based study. World J Surg Oncol. 19(1):212, 2021 Jul 13.
5.	Blank S, Lordick F, Bader F, et al. Post-therapeutic response evaluation by a combination of endoscopy and CT scan in esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after chemotherapy: better than its reputation. Gastric Cancer. 18(2):314-25, 2015 Apr.
6.	Yardimci AH, Sel I, Bektas CT, et al. Computed tomography texture analysis in patients with gastric cancer: a quantitative imaging biomarker for preoperative evaluation before neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Jpn J Radiol. 2020 Jun;38(6):553-560.
7.	Sun Z, Li J, Wang T, Xie Z, Jin L, Hu S. Predicting perigastric lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer with CT perfusion imaging: A prospective analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jan;122():S0720-048X(19)30403-6.
8.	Li R, Li J, Wang X, Liang P, Gao J. Detection of gastric cancer and its histological type based on iodine concentration in spectral CT. Cancer Imaging. 2018 Nov 09;18(1):42.
9.	Cheng SM, Ling W, Zhu J, Xu JR, Wu LM, Gong HX. Dual Energy Spectral CT Imaging in the assessment of Gastric Cancer and cell proliferation: A Preliminary Study. Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 04;8(1):17619.
10.	Li C, Shi C, Zhang H, Hui C, Lam KM, Zhang S. Computer-aided diagnosis for preoperative invasion depth of gastric cancer with dual-energy spectral CT imaging. Acad Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):S1076-6332(14)00313-4.
11.	Li C, Shi C, Zhang H, Chen Y, Zhang S. Multiple instance learning for computer aided detection and diagnosis of gastric cancer with dual-energy CT imaging. J Biomed Inform. 2015 Oct;57():S1532-0464(15)00185-9.
12.	Miedzybrodzki K, Zaleska-Dorobisz U, Slonina J, et al. Usefulness of conventional and low-dose hydro-CT in the diagnosis of gastric tumors in comparison to endoscopy. European Journal of Radiology. 93:90-94, 2017 Aug.
13.	Kim JW, Shin SS, Heo SH, et al. The role of three-dimensional multidetector CT gastrography in the preoperative imaging of stomach cancer: emphasis on detection and localization of the tumor. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(1):80-9.
14.	Wang L, Jin X, Qiao Z, Xu B, Shen J. The Value of Low-dose Prospective Dual-energy Computed Tomography with Iodine Mapping in the Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer. Current Medical Imaging. 16(4):433-437, 2020.
15.	Ma Q, Xin J, Zhao Z, et al. Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of primary gastric cancer via stomach distension. European Journal of Radiology. 82(6):e302-6, 2013 Jun.
16.	Tomizawa M, Shinozaki F, Uchida Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression/T2 image fusion and positron emission tomography/computed tomography of upper gastrointestinal cancers. Abdominal Imaging. 40(8):3012-9, 2015 Oct.
17.	Cui J, Zhao P, Ren Z, Liu B. Evaluation of Dual Time Point Imaging 18F-FDG PET/CT in Differentiating Malignancy From Benign Gastric Disease. Medicine. 94(33):e1356, 2015 Aug.
18.	Minamimoto R, Senda M, Jinnouchi S, Terauchi T, Yoshida T, Inoue T. Performance profile of a FDG-PET cancer screening program for detecting gastric cancer: results from a nationwide Japanese survey. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 32(5):253-9, 2014 May.
19.	Wang Y, Luo W, Li Y. [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET MRI/CT in the evaluation of gastric carcinomas compared with [18F]-FDG PET MRI/CT: a meta-analysis. [Review]. European Journal of Medical Research. 28(1):34, 2023 Jan 18.
20.	Jang KM, Kim SH, Lee SJ, Lee MW, Choi D, Kim KM. Upper abdominal gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of gastric cancer: Comparison with two-dimensional multidetector row CT. Clinical Radiology. 69(8):827-35, 2014 Aug.
21.	Li Q, Xu WY, Sun NN, et al. MRI versus Dual-Energy CT in Local-Regional Staging of Gastric Cancer. Radiology 2024;312:e232387.
22.	Li M, Zheng G, Yu L, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI-DWI signal intensity value combined with serum PGI, PGII and CA199 in early gastric cancer. Cellular & Molecular Biology. 67(2):95-100, 2021 Aug 31.
23.	Xiong J, Jiang J, Chen Y, Chen Y, Xie C, Xu S. Application of Endoscopic Ultrasound Combined with Multislice Spiral CT in Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Gastrointestinal Eminence Lesions. Disease Markers. 2022:1417104, 2022.
24.	Liu L, Lu DY, Cai JR, Zhang L. The value of oral contrast ultrasonography in the diagnosis of gastric cancer in elderly patients. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 16(1):233, 2018 Dec 07.
25.	He P, Miao LY, Ge HY, et al. Preoperative Tumor Staging of Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Double Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Multidetector Computed Tomography. J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Dec;38(12):3203-3209.
26.	Jiang M, Wang X, Shan X, et al. Value of multi-slice spiral computed tomography in the diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes and N-stage of gastric cancer. Journal of International Medical Research. 47(1):281-292, 2019 Jan.
27.	Ri M, Yamashita H, Gonoi W, et al. Identifying multiple swollen lymph nodes on preoperative computed tomography is associated with poor prognosis along with pathological extensive nodal metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 48(2):377-382, 2022 Feb.
28.	Wang Z, Liu Q, Zhuang X, et al. pT1-2 gastric cancer with lymph node metastasis predicted by tumor morphologic features on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology. 29(2):228-233, 2023 03 29.
29.	Luo M, Lv Y, Guo X, Song H, Su G, Chen B. Value and impact factors of multidetector computed tomography in diagnosis of preoperative lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Medicine. 96(33):e7769, 2017 Aug.
30.	Wu LL, Xin JY, Wang JJ, Feng QQ, Xu XL, Li KY. Prospective Comparison of Oral Contrast-Enhanced Transabdominal Ultrasound Imaging With Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Pre-operative Tumor Staging of Gastric Cancer. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 49(2):569-577, 2023 02.
31.	Girolamo MDI, Carbonetti F, Bonome P, Grossi A, Mazzuca F, Masoni L. Hydro-MDCT for Gastric Adenocarcinoma Staging. A Comparative Study With Surgical and Histopathological Findings for Selecting Patients for Echo-endoscopy. Anticancer Res 2020;40:3401-10.
32.	Fujikawa H, Yoshikawa T, Hasegawa S, et al. Diagnostic value of computed tomography for staging of clinical T1 gastric cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 21(9):3002-7, 2014 Sep.
33.	Li J, Tan Y, Zhang D, et al. Value and necessity of pelvic CT in gastric cancer staging: an observational study. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 53(9):1097-1099, 2018 Sep.
34.	You JM, Kim TU, Kim S, et al. Preoperative N stage evaluation in advanced gastric cancer patients using multidetector CT: can the sum of the diameters of metastatic LNs be used for N stage evaluation?. Clinical Radiology. 74(10):782-789, 2019 Oct.
35.	Kawaguchi T, Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, et al. Clinical significance and prognostic impact of the total diameter of enlarged lymph nodes on preoperative multidetector computed tomography in patients with gastric cancer. Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 30(11):1603-9, 2015 Nov.
36.	Wada T, Yoshikawa T, Kamiya A, et al. A nodal diagnosis by computed tomography is unreliable for patients who need additional gastrectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surgery Today. 50(9):1032-1038, 2020 Sep.
37.	Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Imaging in local staging of gastric cancer: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2107-16.
38.	Hallinan JT, Venkatesh SK. Gastric carcinoma: imaging diagnosis, staging and assessment of treatment response. [Review]. Cancer Imaging. 13:212-27, 2013 May 30.
39.	Pongpornsup S, Neungton P, Chairoongruang S, Apisamrnthanarak P. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in evaluation for peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 97(8):863-9, 2014 Aug.
40.	Li ZY, Tang L, Li ZM, et al. Four-Point Computed Tomography Scores for Evaluation of Occult Peritoneal Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Region-to-Region Comparison with Staging Laparoscopy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 27(4):1103-1109, 2020 Apr.
41.	Leeman MF, Patel D, Anderson J, O'Neill JR, Paterson-Brown S. Multidetector Computed Tomography Versus Staging Laparoscopy for the Detection of Peritoneal Metastases in Esophagogastric Junctional and Gastric Cancer. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 27(5):369-374, 2017 Oct.
42.	Tian SF, Liu AL, Wang HQ, Liu JH, Sun MY, Liu YJ. Virtual non-contrast computer tomography (CT) with spectral CT as an alternative to conventional unenhanced CT in the assessment of gastric cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: Apjcp. 16(6):2521-6, 2015.
43.	Chong CS, Ng CW, Shabbir A, Kono K, So JB. Computed tomography of the thorax for gastric cancer staging: Is it necessary?. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery: SJS. 104(4):244-7, 2015 Dec.
44.	Chen AH, Chan WH, Lee YH, et al. Routine chest CT for staging of gastric cancer. British Journal of Surgery. 106(9):1197-1203, 2019 08.
45.	Nostedt J, Gibson-Brokop L, Ghosh S, Seidler M, McCall M, Schiller D. Evaluating the utility of computed tomography of the chest for gastric cancer staging. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 63(1):E57-E61, 2020 02 07.
46.	Bozkurt M, Doganay S, Kantarci M, et al. Comparison of peritoneal tumor imaging using conventional MR imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging with different b values. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:224-8.
47.	Borggreve AS, Goense L, Brenkman HJF, et al. Imaging strategies in the management of gastric cancer: current role and future potential of MRI. [Review]. British Journal of Radiology. 92(1097):20181044, 2019 May.
48.	Debiec K, Wydmanski J, d'Amico A, et al. The application of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in gastric cancerstaging and factors affecting its sensitivity. Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 24(1):66-74, 2021 Jan-Apr.
49.	Altini C, Niccoli Asabella A, Di Palo A, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT role in staging of gastric carcinomas: comparison with conventional contrast enhancement computed tomography. Medicine. 94(20):e864, 2015 May.
50.	Park K, Jang G, Baek S, Song H. Usefulness of combined PET/CT to assess regional lymph node involvement in gastric cancer. Tumori. 100(2):201-6, 2014 Mar-Apr.
51.	Lehmann K, Eshmuminov D, Bauerfeind P, et al. 18FDG-PET-CT improves specificity of preoperative lymph-node staging in patients with intestinal but not diffuse-type esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 43(1):196-202, 2017 Jan.Eur J Surg Oncol. 43(1):196-202, 2017 Jan.
52.	Park JS, Lee N, Beom SH, et al. The prognostic value of volume-based parameters using 18F-FDG PET/CT in gastric cancer according to HER2 status. Gastric Cancer. 21(2):213-224, 2018 Mar.
53.	Mirshahvalad SA, Seyedinia SS, Huemer F, et al. Prognostic value of [18F]FDG PET/CT on treatment response and progression-free survival of gastroesophageal cancer patients undergoing perioperative FLOT chemotherapy. European Journal of Radiology. 163:110843, 2023 Jun.
54.	Findlay JM, Antonowicz S, Segaran A, et al. Routinely staging gastric cancer with 18F-FDG PET-CT detects additional metastases and predicts early recurrence and death after surgery. European Radiology. 29(5):2490-2498, 2019 May.
55.	Song BI, Kim HW, Won KS, Ryu SW, Sohn SS, Kang YN. Preoperative Standardized Uptake Value of Metastatic Lymph Nodes Measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT Improves the Prediction of Prognosis in Gastric Cancer. Medicine. 94(26):e1037, 2015 Jul.
56.	Yamada K, Urakawa N, Kanaji S, et al. Preoperative prediction of the pathological stage of advanced gastric cancer by 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Scientific Reports. 12(1):11370, 2022 07 05.
57.	Wang J, Yu X, Shi A, et al. Predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT multi-metabolic parameters and tumor metabolic heterogeneity in the prognosis of gastric cancer. Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology. 149(16):14535-14547, 2023 Nov.
58.	Bosch KD, Chicklore S, Cook GJ, et al. Staging FDG PET-CT changes management in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who are eligible for radical treatment. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging. 47(4):759-767, 2020 04.
59.	Gertsen EC, Brenkman HJF, van Hillegersberg R, et al. 18F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC). JAMA Surgery. 156(12):e215340, 2021 12 01.
60.	Ma DW, Kim JH, Jeon TJ, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for the evaluation of bone metastasis in patients with gastric cancer. Digestive & Liver Disease. 45(9):769-75, 2013 Sep.
61.	Chon HJ, Kim C, Cho A, et al. The clinical implications of FDG-PET/CT differ according to histology in advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 22(1):113-122, 2019 01.
62.	Chung HW, Kim JH, Sung IK, et al. FDG PET/CT to predict the curability of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology. 145(3):759-764, 2019 Mar.
63.	Gai Q-, Li X-, Li N, Li L, Meng Z, Chen A-. Clinical significance of multi-slice spiral CT, MRI combined with gastric contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of T staging of gastric cancer. Clinical & Translational Oncology: Official Publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societes & of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. 23(10):2036-2045, 2021 Oct.
64.	Choi JI, Joo I, Lee JM. State-of-the-art preoperative staging of gastric cancer by MDCT and magnetic resonance imaging. [Review]. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 20(16):4546-57, 2014 Apr 28.
65.	Li HH, Zhu H, Yue L, et al. Feasibility of free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of gastric cancer using a golden-angle radial stack-of-stars VIBE sequence: comparison with the conventional contrast-enhanced breath-hold 3D VIBE sequence. European Radiology. 28(5):1891-1899, 2018 May.
66.	Qiao X, Li Z, Li L, et al. Preoperative T2-weighted MR imaging texture analysis of gastric cancer: prediction of TNM stages. Abdominal Radiology. 46(4):1487-1497, 2021 04.
67.	Caivano R, Rabasco P, Lotumolo A, et al. Gastric cancer: The role of diffusion weighted imaging in the preoperative staging. Cancer Investigation. 32(5):184-90, 2014 Jun.
68.	Zhang Y, Yu J. The role of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. [Review]. Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology. 26(3):176-182, 2020 May.
69.	Giganti F, Orsenigo E, Esposito A, et al. Prognostic Role of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Resectable Gastric Cancer. Radiology. 276(2):444-52, 2015 Aug.
70.	Liu S, Wang H, Guan W, et al. Preoperative apparent diffusion coefficient value of gastric cancer by diffusion-weighted imaging: Correlations with postoperative TNM staging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 42(3):837-43, 2015 Sep.
71.	Kim IY, Kim SW, Shin HC, et al. MRI of gastric carcinoma: results of T and N-staging in an in vitro study. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:3992-8.
72.	Joo I, Lee JM, Kim JH, Shin CI, Han JK, Choi BI. Prospective comparison of 3T MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging and MDCT for the preoperative TNM staging of gastric cancer. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 41(3):814-21, 2015 Mar.
73.	Soydan L, Demir AA, Torun M, Cikrikcioglu MA. Use of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Gastric Cancer Staging. Current Medical Imaging. 16(10):1278-1289, 2020.
74.	Liu S, Zhang Y, Xia J, et al. Predicting the nodal status in gastric cancers: The role of apparent diffusion coefficient histogram characteristic analysis. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 42:144-151, 2017 10.
75.	Maegerlein C, Fingerle AA, Souvatzoglou M, Rummeny EJ, Holzapfel K. Detection of liver metastases in patients with adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract: comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:1213-22.
76.	Low RN, Sebrechts CP, Barone RM, Muller W. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peritoneal tumors: comparison with conventional MRI and surgical and histopathologic findings--a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:461-70.
77.	Liu S, He J, Guan W, et al. Preoperative T staging of gastric cancer: comparison of diffusion- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 38(4):544-50, 2014 Jul-Aug.
78.	Liu S, Guan W, Wang H, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value of gastric cancer by diffusion-weighted imaging: correlations with the histological differentiation and Lauren classification. European Journal of Radiology. 83(12):2122-2128, 2014 Dec.
79.	Li J, Yan LL, Zhang HK, et al. Application of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging for preoperative knowledge of lymphovascular invasion in gastric cancer: a prospective study. Abdominal Radiology. 48(7):2207-2218, 2023 07.
80.	Zhang Y, Zhang J, Yang L, Huang S. A meta-analysis of the utility of transabdominal ultrasound for evaluation of gastric cancer. [Review]. Medicine. 100(32):e26928, 2021 Aug 13.
81.	He X, Sun J, Huang X, et al. Comparison of Oral Contrast-Enhanced Transabdominal Ultrasound Imaging With Transverse Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Preoperative Tumor Staging of Advanced Gastric Carcinoma. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 36(12):2485-2493, 2017 Dec.
82.	Urakawa S, Michiura T, Tokuyama S, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of tumor depth in gastric cancer using transabdominal ultrasonography compared to using endoscopy and computed tomography. Surgical Endoscopy. 37(5):3807-3813, 2023 05.
83.	Yu T, Wang X, Zhao Z, et al. Prediction of T stage in gastric carcinoma by enhanced CT and oral contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 13:184, 2015 May 19.
84.	Mehmedovic A, Mesihovic R, Saray A, Vanis N. Gastric cancer staging: EUS and CT. Medicinski Arhiv. 68(1):34-6, 2014.
85.	Han C, Xu T, Zhang Q, Liu J, Ding Z, Hou X. The New American Joint Committee on Cancer T staging system for stomach: increased complexity without clear improvement in predictive accuracy for endoscopic ultrasound. BMC Gastroenterology. 21(1):255, 2021 Jun 11.
86.	Liu S, Zhang M, Yang Y, et al. Establishment and validation of a risk score model based on EUS: assessment of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;100:857-66.
87.	Gertsen EC, de Jongh C, Brenkman HJF, et al. The additive value of restaging-CT during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 46(7):1247-1253, 2020 07.
88.	Lee DH, Kim SH, Lee SM, Han JK. Prediction of Treatment Outcome of Chemotherapy Using Perfusion Computed Tomography in Patients with Unresectable Advanced Gastric Cancer. Korean Journal of Radiology. 20(4):589-598, 2019 04.
89.	Yoshikawa T, Tanabe K, Nishikawa K, et al. Accuracy of CT staging of locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: cohort evaluation within a randomized phase II study. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 21 Suppl 3:S385-9, 2014 Jun.
90.	Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4604-10.
91.	Bilici A, Ustaalioglu BB, Seker M, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent gastric cancer after initial surgical resection: can the results of FDG PET/CT influence patients' treatment decision making?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 38(1):64-73, 2011 Jan.
92.	Wu LM, Hu JN, Hua J, Gu HY, Zhu J, Xu JR. 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate recurrent gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 27(3):472-80, 2012 Mar.
93.	Li P, Liu Q, Wang C, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate recurrent gastric cancer after surgical resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 30(3):179-87, 2016 Apr.
94.	Lee DH, Kim SH, Im SA, Oh DY, Kim TY, Han JK. Multiparametric fully-integrated 18-FDG PET/MRI of advanced gastric cancer for prediction of chemotherapy response: a preliminary study. European Radiology. 26(8):2771-8, 2016 Aug.
95.	Giganti F, De Cobelli F, Canevari C, et al. Response to chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma with diffusion-weighted MRI and (18) F-FDG-PET/CT: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient and partial volume corrected standardized uptake value with histological tumor regression grade. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 40(5):1147-57, 2014 Nov.
96.	Tanaka O, Yagi N, Tawada M, et al. Hemostatic Radiotherapy for Gastric Cancer: MRI as an Alternative to Endoscopy for Post-Treatment Evaluation. Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer. 54(2):554-563, 2023 Jun.
97.	Seo N, Han K, Hyung WJ, et al. Stratification of Postsurgical Computed Tomography Surveillance Based on the Extragastric Recurrence of Early Gastric Cancer. Annals of Surgery. 272(2):319-325, 2020 08.
98.	Park CJ, Seo N, Hyung WJ, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative CT findings in patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 13(8):e0202207, 2018.
99.	Yang D, Zhou Y, Peng Z, Ou N. Effects of MSCT enhanced scan image diagnosis on clinical outcome of patients after radical gastrectomy and its influence on misdiagnosis rate. Journal of B.U.On.. 26(4):1479-1484, 2021 Jul-Aug.
100.	Park CH, Kim EH, Chung H, et al. Role of computed tomography scan for the primary surveillance of mucosal gastric cancer after complete resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surgical Endoscopy. 28(4):1307-13, 2014 Apr.
101.	Choi KS, Kim SH, Kim SG, Han JK. Early Gastric Cancers: Is CT Surveillance Necessary after Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Resection for Cancers That Meet the Expanded Criteria?. Radiology. 281(2):444-453, 2016 Nov.
102.	Jin Kim S, Kim TU, Woong Choi C, Gon Ryu D. Extragastric recurrence in patients who underwent surgical resection of stage I gastric cancer: Incidence, risk factors, and value of abdominal computed tomography as a postoperative surveillance method. Medicine. 101(37):e30335, 2022 Sep 16.
103.	Kim JH, Heo SH, Kim JW, et al. Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 23(35):6448-6456, 2017 Sep 21.
104.	Lee JW, Lee SM, Lee MS, Shin HC. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the prediction of gastric cancer recurrence after curative surgical resection. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging. 39(9):1425-34, 2012 Sep.
105.	Lee JW, Lee SM, Son MW, Lee MS. Diagnostic performance of FDG PET/CT for surveillance in asymptomatic gastric cancer patients after curative surgical resection. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging. 43(5):881-888, 2016 May.
106.	Zou H, Zhao Y. 18FDG PET-CT for detecting gastric cancer recurrence after surgical resection: a meta-analysis. [Review]. Surgical Oncology. 22(3):162-6, 2013 Sep.
107.	Malibari N, Hickeson M, Lisbona R. PET/Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis and Staging of Gastric Cancers. [Review]. Pet Clinics. 10(3):311-26, 2015 Jul.
108.	Cayvarli H, Bekis R, Akman T, Altun D. The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Evaluation of Gastric Cancer Recurrence. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 2014;23:76-83.
109.	Kim DW, Park SA, Kim CG. Detecting the recurrence of gastric cancer after curative resection: comparison of FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 26(7):875-80, 2011 Jul.
110.	Sun G, Cheng C, Li X, Wang T, Yang J, Li D. Metabolic tumor burden on postsurgical PET/CT predicts survival of patients with gastric cancer. Cancer Imaging. 19(1):18, 2019 Mar 22.
111.	Turkoz FP, Solak M, Kilickap S, et al. Bone metastasis from gastric cancer: the incidence, clinicopathological features, and influence on survival. J Gastric Cancer 2014;14:164-72.
112.	Lee JW, Lee MS, Chung IK, Son MW, Cho YS, Lee SM. Clinical implication of FDG uptake of bone marrow on PET/CT in gastric cancer patients with surgical resection. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 23(13):2385-2395, 2017 Apr 07.
113.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
114.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.