New progress and future research directions in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer in the era of digital intelligence

JI Jia-fu, LI Zhe-min, LI Zi-yu

Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (1) : 15-18.

PDF(1344 KB)
PDF(1344 KB)
Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (1) : 15-18. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2026.01.04

New progress and future research directions in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer in the era of digital intelligence

Author information +
History +

Abstract

In recent years, with the continuous accumulation of high-quality evidence, a comprehensive treatment paradigm centered on standardized surgery and combined with perioperative chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been gradually established, leading to substantial improvements in overall outcomes for gastric cancer management. However, traditional treatment pathways oriented toward “standardization” have increasingly revealed limitations in addressing the pronounced biological heterogeneity of gastric cancer and the growing complexity of therapeutic decision-making. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, robotic-assisted surgery, multimodal imaging integration, and data science, the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer are undergoing a paradigm shift—from experience-driven practice and process standardization toward a new stage of “digital and intelligent” medicine characterized by data integration and intelligent decision-making. Emerging evidence indicates that artificial intelligence-assisted imaging screening and staging, novel near-infrared fluorescence imaging technologies, data-driven quality control systems, and systematic analyses of the tumor immune microenvironment are collectively reshaping the paradigms of gastric cancer management and research across multiple dimensions, including surgical techniques, individualized treatment strategies, quality management, and basic research. By integrating representative advances from both domestic and international studies, together with the authors’ team’s practical experience in international collaborations.

Key words

gastric cancer / digital intelligence / tailored therapy / artificial intelligence / quality control

Cite this article

Download Citations
JI Jia-fu , LI Zhe-min , LI Zi-yu. New progress and future research directions in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer in the era of digital intelligence[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery. 2026, 46(1): 15-18 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2026.01.04

References

[1]
Han B, Zheng R, Zeng H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2022[J]. J Nat Cancer Cent, 2024, 4(1): 47-53. DOI:10.1016/j.jncc.2024.01.006.
[2]
Sundar R, Nakayama I, Markar SR, et al. Gastric cancer[J]. Lancet (London, England), 2025, 405(10494): 2087-2102. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00052-2.
[3]
Gwee YX, Chia DKA, Ceelen W, et al. Integration of genomic biology into therapeutic strategies of gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2022, 40(24): 2830. DOI:10.1200/JCO.21.02745.
The peritoneum is a common site of metastasis in advanced gastric cancer (GC). Diagnostic laparoscopy is now routinely performed as part of disease staging, leading to an earlier diagnosis of synchronous peritoneal metastasis (PM). The biology of GCPM is unique and aggressive, leading to a dismal prognosis. These tumors tend to be resistant to traditional systemic therapy, and yet, this remains the current standard-of-care recommended by most international clinical guidelines. As this is an area of unmet clinical need, several translational studies and clinical trials have focused on addressing this specific disease state. Advances in genomic sequencing and molecular profiling have revealed several promising therapeutic targets and elucidated novel biology, particularly on the role of the surrounding tumor microenvironment in GCPM. Peritoneal-specific clinical trials are being designed with a combination of locoregional therapeutic strategies with systemic therapy. In this review, we summarize the new knowledge of cancer biology, advances in surgical techniques, and emergence of novel therapies as an integrated strategy emerges to address GCPM as a distinct clinical entity.
[4]
Sano T, Sasako M, Mizusawa J, et al. Randomized controlled trial to evaluate splenectomy in total gastrectomy for proximal gastric carcinoma[J]. Ann Surg, 2017, 265(2): 277-283. DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001814.
To clarify the role of splenectomy in total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer.Splenectomy in total gastrectomy is associated with increased operative morbidity and mortality, but its survival benefit is unclear. Previous randomized controlled trials were underpowered and inconclusive.We conducted a multiinstitutional randomized controlled trial. Proximal gastric adenocarcinoma of T2-4/N0-2/M0 not invading the greater curvature was eligible. During the operation, surgeons confirmed that R0 resection was possible with negative lavage cytology, and patients were randomly assigned to either splenectomy or spleen preservation. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and the secondary endpoints were relapse-free survival, operative morbidity, operation time, and blood loss. The trial was designed to confirm noninferiority of spleen preservation to splenectomy in OS with a noninferiority margin of the hazard ratio as 1.21 and 1-sided alpha of 5%.Between June 2002 and March 2009, 505 patients (254 splenectomy, 251 spleen preservation) were enrolled from 36 institutions. Splenectomy was associated with higher morbidity and larger blood loss, but the operation time was similar. The 5-year survivals were 75.1% and 76.4% in the splenectomy and spleen preservation groups, respectively. The hazard ratio was 0.88 (90.7%, confidence interval 0.67-1.16) (<1.21); thus, the noninferiority of spleen preservation was confirmed (P = 0.025).In total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer that does not invade the greater curvature, splenectomy should be avoided as it increases operative morbidity without improving survival.
[5]
Lin JX, Lin JP, Wang ZK, et al. Assessment of laparoscopic spleen-preserving hilar lymphadenectomy for advanced proximal gastric cancer without invasion into the greater curvature: a randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA Surg, 2023, 158(1): 10-18. DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2022.5307.
The survival benefit of laparoscopic total gastrectomy combined with spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (LSTG) for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer (APGC) without invasion into the greater curvature remains uncertain.
[6]
Kurokawa Y, Takeuchi H, Doki Y, et al. Mapping of lymph node metastasis from esophagogastric junction tumors: a prospective nationwide multicenter study[J]. Ann Surg, 2021, 274(1): 120-127. DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003499.
The aim of the study was to determine the optimal extent of lymph node dissection for the 2 histological types of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) tumors based on the incidence of metastasis in a prospective nationwide multicenter study.
[7]
Li S, Ying X, Shan F, et al. Laparoscopic vs. open lower mediastinal lymphadenectomy for Siewert type Ⅱ/Ⅲ adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction: An exploratory, observational, prospective, IDEAL stage 2B cohort study (CLASS-10 study)[J]. Chin J Cancer Res, 2022, 34(4): 406-414. DOI:10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2022.04.08.
[8]
李子禹, 关广民, 王胤奎, 等. 腹腔镜胃癌手术质量控制相关问题[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2023, 43(9): 966-970.DOI:10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.09.02.
[9]
苗儒林, 李子禹, 武爱文. 中国胃肠肿瘤外科联盟数据报告(2014-2016)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2018, 38(1): 95-98.DOI:10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.01.20.
[10]
Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2019, 321(20): 1983-1992. DOI:10.1001/jama.2019.5359.
Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is accepted as a more effective approach to conventional open distal gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. However, efficacy for locally advanced gastric cancer remains uncertain.To compare 3-year disease-free survival for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy or open distal gastrectomy.The study was a noninferiority, open-label, randomized clinical trial at 14 centers in China. A total of 1056 eligible patients with clinical stage T2, T3, or T4a gastric cancer without bulky nodes or distant metastases were enrolled from September 2012 to December 2014. Final follow-up was on December 31, 2017.Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio after stratification by site, age, cancer stage, and histology to undergo either laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (n = 528) or open distal gastrectomy (n = 528) with D2 lymphadenectomy.The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival with a noninferiority margin of -10% to compare laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with open distal gastrectomy. Secondary end points of 3-year overall survival and recurrence patterns were tested for superiority.Among 1056 patients, 1039 (98.4%; mean age, 56.2 years; 313 [30.1%] women) had surgery (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy [n=519] vs open distal gastrectomy [n=520]), and 999 (94.6%) completed the study. Three-year disease-free survival rate was 76.5% in the laparoscopic distal gastrectomy group and 77.8% in the open distal gastrectomy group, absolute difference of -1.3% and a 1-sided 97.5% CI of -6.5% to ∞, not crossing the prespecified noninferiority margin. Three-year overall survival rate (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy: 83.1% vs 85.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.64; P = .28) and cumulative incidence of recurrence over the 3-year period (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy vs open distal gastrectomy: 18.8% vs 16.5%; subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.54; P = .35) did not significantly differ between laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy groups.Among patients with a preoperative clinical stage indicating locally advanced gastric cancer, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, compared with open distal gastrectomy, did not result in inferior disease-free survival at 3 years.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01609309.
[11]
Hyung WJ, Yang HK, Park YK, et al. Long-Term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: the KLASS-02-RCT randomized clinical trial[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2020, 38(28): 3304-3313. DOI:10.1200/JCO.20.01210.
It is unclear whether laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer is oncologically equivalent to open distal gastrectomy. The noninferiority of laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer compared with open surgery in terms of 3-year relapse-free survival rate was evaluated.A phase III, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted for patients with histologically proven locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma suitable for distal subtotal gastrectomy. The primary end point was the 3-year relapse-free survival rate; the upper limit of the hazard ratio (HR) for noninferiority was 1.43 between the laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy groups.From November 2011 to April 2015, 1,050 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (n = 524) or open surgery (n = 526). After exclusions, 492 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 482 underwent open surgery and were included in the analysis. The laparoscopy group, compared with the open surgery group, suffered fewer early complications (15.7% 23.4%, respectively; =.0027) and late complications (4.7% 9.5%, respectively; =.0038), particularly intestinal obstruction (2.0% 4.4%, respectively; =.0447). The 3-year relapse-free survival rate was 80.3% (95% CI, 76.0% to 85.0%) for the laparoscopy group and 81.3% (95% CI, 77.0% to 85.0%; log-rank =.726) for the open group. Cox regression analysis after stratification by the surgeon revealed an HR of 1.035 (95% CI, 0.762 to 1.406; log-rank =.827; for noninferiority =.039). When stratified by pathologic stage, the HR was 1.020 (95% CI, 0.751 to 1.385; log-rank =.900; for noninferiority =.030).Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy was comparable to open surgery in terms of relapse-free survival for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy could be a potential standard treatment option for locally advanced gastric cancer.
[12]
Liu F, Huang C, Xu Z, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic vs open total gastrectomy for clinical stage i gastric cancer: the CLASS-02 multicenter randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2020, 6(10): 1590-1597. DOI:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3152.
[13]
Zhang Y, Li Z, Tian Y, et al. Morbidity and quality of life of totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial (CKLASS01)[J]. Gastric Cancer, 2025, 28(1): 131-144. DOI:10.1007/s10120-024-01561-y.
There is a paucity of confirmatory randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) vs laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).A phase III, prospective, multi-center RCT was conducted, wherein patients (n = 442) with clinical stage I gastric cancer eligible for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy were randomized 1:1 to the TLDG or the LADG group. Postoperative morbidity and quality of life (QoL) were compared.In total, 422 patients were assessed (TLDG, 216; LADG, 206) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. The morbidity rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (TLDG, 6.0%; LADG, 5.8%; P = 0.93). The 90-day mortality rate was comparable between the groups (TLDG, 0.5%; LADG, 0.0%; P > 0.99). TLDG was significantly associated with a lower pain score compared with LADG in patients with a BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m (P = 0.002) at 24 h postoperatively. Moreover, TLDG significantly improved QoL in terms of C30 social functioning at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.03 and P = 0.04), C30 global health status at 3 months (P = 0.02), and STO22 body image at 3 months (P = 0.01), with differences dissipating at 12 months.TLDG is not superior to LADG in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality, but it provides better C30 social functioning at 3 and 6 months, C30 global health status and STO22 body image at 3 months, and reduces early postoperative pain for patients with a BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03393182.© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.
[14]
季加孚, 梁寒, 詹友庆, 等. CLASSIC研究(胃癌D2切除术后XELOX辅助化疗)中国亚组报告[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2014, 17(2): 6.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2014.02.009.
[15]
Zhang X, Liang H, Li Z, et ai. Perioperative or postoperative adjuvant oxaliplatin with S-1 versus adjuvant oxaliplatin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing D2 gastrectomy (RESOLVE): an open-label, superiority and non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2021, 22(8): 1081-1092. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00297-7.
The optimal perioperative chemotherapeutic regimen for locally advanced gastric cancer remains undefined. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of perioperative and postoperative S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) compared with postoperative capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer undergoing D2 gastrectomy.We did this open-label, phase 3, superiority and non-inferiority, randomised trial at 27 hospitals in China. We recruited antitumour treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with historically confirmed cT4a N+ M0 or cT4b Nany M0 gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with Karnofsky performance score of 70 or more. Patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web response system, stratified by participating centres and Lauren classification, to receive adjuvant CapOx (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m twice a day), adjuvant SOX (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral S-1 40-60 mg twice a day), or perioperative SOX (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m on day one of each 21 day plus oral S-1 40-60 mg twice a day for three cycles preoperatively and five cycles postoperatively followed by three cycles of S-1 monotherapy). The primary endpoint, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, 3-year disease-free survival to assess the superiority of perioperative-SOX compared with adjuvant-SOX and the non-inferiority (hazard ratio non-inferiority margin of 1·33) of adjuvant-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx. Safety analysis were done in patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01534546.Between Aug 15, 2012, and Feb 28, 2017, 1094 patients were screened and 1022 (93%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, of whom 345 (34%) patients were assigned to the adjuvant-CapOx, 340 (33%) patients to the adjuvant-SOX group, and 337 (33%) patients to the perioperative-SOX group. 3-year disease-free survival was 51·1% (95% CI 45·5-56·3) in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 56·5% (51·0-61·7) in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 59·4% (53·8-64·6) in the perioperative-SOX group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0·77 (95% CI 0·61-0·97; Wald p=0·028) for the perioperative-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group and 0·86 (0·68-1·07; Wald p=0·17) for the adjuvant-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events was neutropenia (32 [12%] of 258 patients in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 21 [8%] of 249 patients in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 30 [10%] of 310 patients in the perioperative-SOX group). Serious adverse events were reported in seven (3%) of 258 patients in adjuvant-CapOx group, two of which were related to treatment; eight (3%) of 249 patients in adjuvant-SOX group, two of which were related to treatment; and seven (2%) of 310 patients in perioperative-SOX group, four of which were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths were reported.Perioperative-SOX showed a clinically meaningful improvement compared with adjuvant-CapOx in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who had D2 gastrectomy; adjuvant-SOX was non-inferior to adjuvant-CapOx in these patients. Perioperative-SOX could be considered a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.National Key Research and Development Program of China, Beijing Scholars Program 2018-2024, Peking University Clinical Scientist Program, Taiho, Sanofi-Aventis, and Hengrui Pharmaceutical.For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[16]
Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2010, 376(9742): 687-697. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61121-X.
[17]
Shah MA, Shitara K, Ajani JA, et al. Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the randomized, phase 3 GLOW trial[J]. Nat Med, 2023, 29(8): 2133-2141. DOI:10.1038/s41591-023-02465-7.
There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n = 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544-0.866; P = 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615-0.965; P = 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03653507.© 2023. The Author(s).
[18]
Shitara K, Lordick F, Bang YJ, et al. Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (SPOTLIGHT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet, 2023, 401(10389): 1655-1668. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00620-7.
Zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2), has shown efficacy in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. We report the results of the SPOTLIGHT trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (modified folinic acid [or levofolinate], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin regimen) versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.SPOTLIGHT is a global, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients from 215 centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with CLDN18.2-positive (defined as ≥75% of tumour cells showing moderate-to-strong membranous CLDN18 staining), HER2-negative (based on local or central evaluation), previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with radiologically evaluable disease (measurable or non-measurable) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology and stratified according to region, number of organs with metastases, and previous gastrectomy. Patients received zolbetuximab (800 mg/m loading dose followed by 600 mg/m every 3 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6 (every 2 weeks) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent review committee in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03504397, and is closed to new participants.Between June 21, 2018, and April 1, 2022, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive either zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (283 patients; the zolbetuximab group) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (282 patients; the placebo group). At least one dose of treatment was administered to 279 (99%) of 283 patients in the zolbetuximab group and 278 (99%) of 282 patients in the placebo group. In the zolbetuximab group, 176 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. In the placebo group, 175 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. The median follow-up duration for progression-free survival was 12·94 months in the zolbetuximab group versus 12·65 months in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment showed a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·0066). The median progression-free survival was 10·61 months (95% CI 8·90-12·48) in the zolbetuximab group versus 8·67 months (8·21-10·28) in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment also showed a significant reduction in the risk of death versus placebo (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·0053). Treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 242 (87%) of 279 patients in the zolbetuximab group versus 216 (78%) of 278 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (2%) patients in the zolbetuximab group versus four (1%) patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were identified.Targeting CLDN18.2 with zolbetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when combined with mFOLFOX6 versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 might represent a new first-line treatment in these patients.Astellas Pharma, Inc.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[19]
Tang YH, Huang ZN, Sun YQ, et al. Prognostic impact of fluorescent lymphography on gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. JAMA Surg, 2025, 160(5): 554-563. DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2025.0108.
Indocyanine green (ICG)–guided lymphadenectomy has been increasingly used to treat gastric cancer. However, its oncologic impact remains unclear.
[20]
Zhang Z, Du Y, Shi X, et al. NIR-II light in clinical oncology: opportunities and challenges[J]. Nat Rev. Clin Oncol, 2024, 21(6): 449-467. DOI:10.1038/s41571-024-00892-0.
Novel strategies utilizing light in the second near-infrared region (NIR-II; 900-1,880 nm wavelengths) offer the potential to visualize and treat solid tumours with enhanced precision. Over the past few decades, numerous techniques leveraging NIR-II light have been developed with the aim of precisely eliminating tumours while maximally preserving organ function. During cancer surgery, NIR-II optical imaging enables the visualization of clinically occult lesions and surrounding vital structures with increased sensitivity and resolution, thereby enhancing surgical quality and improving patient prognosis. Furthermore, the use of NIR-II light promises to improve cancer phototherapy by enabling the selective delivery of increased therapeutic energy to tissues at greater depths. Initial clinical studies of NIR-II-based imaging and phototherapy have indicated impressive potential to decrease cancer recurrence, reduce complications and prolong survival. Despite the encouraging results achieved, clinical translation of innovative NIR-II techniques remains challenging and inefficient; multidisciplinary cooperation is necessary to bridge the gap between preclinical research and clinical practice, and thus accelerate the translation of technical advances into clinical benefits. In this Review, we summarize the available clinical data on NIR-II-based imaging and phototherapy, demonstrating the feasibility and utility of integrating these technologies into the treatment of cancer. We also introduce emerging NIR-II-based approaches with substantial potential to further enhance patient outcomes, while also highlighting the challenges associated with imminent clinical studies of these modalities.© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.
[21]
Hikage M, Tokunaga M, Furukawa K, et al. Long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer: a single-center prospective phase Ⅱ study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2021, 35(8): 4160-4166. DOI:10.1007/s00464-020-07895-9.
[22]
Dong D, Tang L, Li ZY, et al. Development and validation of an individualized nomogram to identify occult peritoneal metastasis in patients with advanced gastric cancer[J]. Ann Oncol, 2019, 30(3): 431-438. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdz001.
Occult peritoneal metastasis (PM) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients is highly possible to be missed on computed tomography (CT) images. Patients with occult PMs are subject to late detection or even improper surgical treatment. We therefore aimed to develop a radiomic nomogram to preoperatively identify occult PMs in AGC patients.A total of 554 AGC patients from 4 centers were divided into 1 training, 1 internal validation, and 2 external validation cohorts. All patients' PM status was firstly diagnosed as negative by CT, but later confirmed by laparoscopy (PM-positive n = 122, PM-negative n = 432). Radiomic signatures reflecting phenotypes of the primary tumor (RS1) and peritoneum region (RS2) were built as predictors of PM from 266 quantitative image features. Individualized nomograms of PM status incorporating RS1, RS2, or clinical factors were developed and evaluated regarding prediction ability.RS1, RS2, and Lauren type were significant predictors of occult PM (all P < 0.05). A nomogram of these three factors demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy than the model with RS1, RS2, or clinical factors alone (all net reclassification improvement P < 0.05). The area under curve yielded was 0.958 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.923-0.993], 0.941 (95% CI 0.904-0.977), 0.928 (95% CI 0.886-0.971), and 0.920 (95% CI 0.862-0.978) for the training, internal, and two external validation cohorts, respectively. Stratification analysis showed that this nomogram had potential generalization ability.CT phenotypes of both primary tumor and nearby peritoneum are significantly associated with occult PM status. A nomogram of these CT phenotypes and Lauren type has an excellent prediction ability of occult PM, and may have significant clinical implications on early detection of occult PM for AGC.© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
[23]
Dong D, Fang MJ, Tang L, et al. Deep learning radiomic nomogram can predict the number of lymph node metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer: an international multicenter study[J]. Ann Oncol, 2020, 31(7): 912-920. DOI:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.003.
Preoperative evaluation of the number of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is the basis of individual treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). However, the routinely used preoperative determination method is not accurate enough.We enrolled 730 LAGC patients from five centers in China and one center in Italy, and divided them into one primary cohort, three external validation cohorts, and one international validation cohort. A deep learning radiomic nomogram (DLRN) was built based on the images from multiphase computed tomography (CT) for preoperatively determining the number of LNM in LAGC. We comprehensively tested the DLRN and compared it with three state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, we investigated the value of the DLRN in survival analysis.The DLRN showed good discrimination of the number of LNM on all cohorts [overall C-indexes (95% confidence interval): 0.821 (0.785-0.858) in the primary cohort, 0.797 (0.771-0.823) in the external validation cohorts, and 0.822 (0.756-0.887) in the international validation cohort]. The nomogram performed significantly better than the routinely used clinical N stages, tumor size, and clinical model (P < 0.05). Besides, DLRN was significantly associated with the overall survival of LAGC patients (n = 271).A deep learning-based radiomic nomogram had good predictive value for LNM in LAGC. In staging-oriented treatment of gastric cancer, this preoperative nomogram could provide baseline information for individual treatment of LAGC.Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
[24]
Hu C, Xia Y, Zheng Z, et al. AI-based large-scale screening of gastric cancer from noncontrast CT imaging[J]. Nat Med, 2025, 31(9): 3011-3019. DOI:10.1038/s41591-025-03785-6.
[25]
国家癌症中心, 国家肿瘤质控中心胃癌质控专家委员会. 中国胃癌规范诊疗质量控制指标(2022版)[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2022, 44(10): 997-1002. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20220803-00532.
[26]
沈鑫, 李晓晴, 徐翠香, 等. 基于人工智能的电子病历实时质量控制探索[J]. 中华医院管理杂志, 2020, 36(3): 206-209.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn1000-6672.2020.30.008.
[27]
Zheng L, Qin S, Si W, et al. Pan-cancer single-cell landscape of tumor-infiltrating T cells[J]. Science, 2021, 374(6574): abe6474. DOI:10.1126/science.abe6474.
[28]
Cheng S, Li Z, Gao R, et al. A pan-cancer single-cell transcriptional atlas of tumor infiltrating myeloid cells[J]. Cell, 2021, 184(3): 792-809.e23. DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.010.
Tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells (TIMs) are key regulators in tumor progression, but the similarity and distinction of their fundamental properties across different tumors remain elusive. Here, by performing a pan-cancer analysis of single myeloid cells from 210 patients across 15 human cancer types, we identified distinct features of TIMs across cancer types. Mast cells in nasopharyngeal cancer were found to be associated with better prognosis and exhibited an anti-tumor phenotype with a high ratio of TNF/VEGFA cells. Systematic comparison between cDC1- and cDC2-derived LAMP3 cDCs revealed their differences in transcription factors and external stimulus. Additionally, pro-angiogenic tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) were characterized with diverse markers across different cancer types, and the composition of TIMs appeared to be associated with certain features of somatic mutations and gene expressions. Our results provide a systematic view of the highly heterogeneous TIMs and suggest future avenues for rational, targeted immunotherapies.Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China(Major Program, 92259302)
PDF(1344 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/