The New American Joint Committee on Cancer T staging system for stomach: increased complexity without clear improvement in predictive accuracy for endoscopic ultrasound

Table 4 Factors affecting EUS T staging accuracy, overstaged and understaged according to clinicopathologic and endoscopic variables

Variables	No.of accuracy (%)	P	No. of overstaged (%)	P	No. of understaged (%)	P
Longitudinal portions		0.001		0.001		0.014
Antrum	129/183 (70.5%)		35/183 (19.1%)		19/183 (10.4%)
Corpus	104/120 (86.7%)		6/120 (5%)		10/120 (8.3%)
Gastroesophageal junction	42/63 (66.7%)		8/63 (12.7%)		13/63 (20.6%)
Fundus	46/72 (63.9%)		10/72 (13.9%)		16/72 (22.2%)
Gastric angulus	20/33 (60.6%)		10/33 (30.3%)		3/33 (9.1%)
Cross-sectional portions		0.802		0.202		0.067
Circumferential lesions ≥1/2	88/120 (73.4%)		22/120 (18.3%)		10/120 (8.3%)
Circumferential lesions < 1/2	164/228 (71.9%)		29/228 (12.7%)		35/228 (15.4%)
		0.674		0.786		0.399
Ascites	23/30 (76.7%)		5/30 (16.7%)		2/30 (6.6%)
Absence of ascites	229/318 (72.0%)		46/318 (14.5%)		43/318 (13.5%)
EUS type		0.012		0.481		0.009
Radial scanning	231/309 (74.8%)		44/309 (14.2%)		34/309 (11.0%)
Linear array	21/39 (53.9%)		7/39 (17.9%)		11/39 (28.2%)
Histological type		0.039		0.361		0.000
Well-differentiated	33/39 (84.6%)		4/39 (10.3%)		2/39 (5.1%)
Moderately differentiated	37/48 (77.1%)		6/48 (12.5%)		5/48 (10.4%)
Poorly differentiated	122/165 (73.9%)		30/165 (18.2%)		13/165 (7.9%)
Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma	60/96 (62.5%)		11/96 (11.5%)		25/96 (26.0%)

ISSN: 1471-230X