Sentinel Node Navigation Surgery in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes
4 affiliations
- 1College of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
- 2The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
- 3Roger Williams Surgery and Cancer Outcomes Research and Equity (RWSCORE) Center, Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI 02908, USA
- 4Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, School of Medicine, Yale University, 330 Cedar Street FMB 130E, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. However, earlier detection has increased the number of cases suitable for organ-preserving treatment. Sentinel node navigation surgery has been proposed as an alternative to standard gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. The safety of this procedure hinges on how accurately sentinel node mapping predicts nodal status. This systematic review synthesizes its diagnostic accuracy and outcome data. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from inception without date limits, along with two trial registries; screening was restricted to English-language reports. Estimates and exact binomial (Clopper–Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were recalculated from each study’s reported contingency counts using a consistent statistical method. Each included cohort was appraised using QUADAS-2. Results: Eight cohorts contributed per-patient accuracy data, and three contributed per-node molecular comparisons. Detection rates were 97.1% or higher in every cohort entry, with the exception of the naked-eye dye arm of a within-cohort comparison and the smallest feasibility series. Sensitivity was 93.0% (53/57; 95% CI, 83.0–98.1) in the single adequately powered treatment-naive cohort, compared to 69.6% (16/23; 47.1–86.8) in the single prospective trial conducted after non-curative endoscopic resection. Sensitivity also depended on the thoroughness of sentinel node examination: within one cohort, the same patients yielded a sensitivity of 53.6% with single-plane frozen section versus 85.7% with multiple paraffin sections. Therefore, estimates were not pooled. No appraised cohort demonstrated a low risk of bias across all four QUADAS-2 domains. Conclusions: Stomach preservation guided by sentinel node mapping may be a reasonable approach for treatment-naive disease in experienced centers. However, it is not supported after non-curative endoscopic resection.
Related
- Clinical setting-dependent diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence and store-and-forward diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Artificial intelligence and digital health in bronchoscopy: advances in diagnostic accuracy, real-time navigation and procedural skills training
- AI-Assisted Clinical Decision Support Versus Standard Teleconsultation in Adult Medicine: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy, Referral and Testing Decisions, and Clinician Confidence.
- Diagnostic accuracy of a systematic approach using Swedescore versus conventional colposcopy for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse: A multicenter, non‐randomized clinical study
- Diagnostic accuracy of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score for acute appendicitis during pregnancy: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{kim2026sentinel,
title = {{Sentinel Node Navigation Surgery in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes}},
author = {Jonathan W. Kim and Helen D. Kim and Elliott Lee and Steve Kwon},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18203332},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/20/3332},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Sentinel Node Navigation Surgery in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes
AU - Jonathan W. Kim
AU - Helen D. Kim
AU - Elliott Lee
AU - Steve Kwon
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18203332
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/20/3332
AB - Background/Objectives: Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. However, earlier detection has increased the number of cases suitable for organ-preserving treatment. Sentinel node navigation surgery has been proposed as an alternative to standard gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. The safety of this procedure hinges on how accurately sentinel node mapping predicts nodal status. This systematic review synthesizes its diagnostic accuracy and outcome data. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from inception without date limits, along with two trial registries; screening was restricted to English-language reports. Estimates and exact binomial (Clopper–Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were recalculated from each study’s reported contingency counts using a consistent statistical method. Each included cohort was appraised using QUADAS-2. Results: Eight cohorts contributed per-patient accuracy data, and three contributed per-node molecular comparisons. Detection rates were 97.1% or higher in every cohort entry, with the exception of the naked-eye dye arm of a within-cohort comparison and the smallest feasibility series. Sensitivity was 93.0% (53/57; 95% CI, 83.0–98.1) in the single adequately powered treatment-naive cohort, compared to 69.6% (16/23; 47.1–86.8) in the single prospective trial conducted after non-curative endoscopic resection. Sensitivity also depended on the thoroughness of sentinel node examination: within one cohort, the same patients yielded a sensitivity of 53.6% with single-plane frozen section versus 85.7% with multiple paraffin sections. Therefore, estimates were not pooled. No appraised cohort demonstrated a low risk of bias across all four QUADAS-2 domains. Conclusions: Stomach preservation guided by sentinel node mapping may be a reasonable approach for treatment-naive disease in experienced centers. However, it is not supported after non-curative endoscopic resection.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -