[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-349856-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-349856-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","the-significance-of-small-lymph-nodes-on-ct-for-advanced-poorly-cohesive-gastric-carcinoma","The significance of small lymph nodes on CT for advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma","","Objective: Assess the size of metastatic lymph nodes on pre-operative CT in advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma and examine differences by histological type. Methods: Advanced gastric cancer patients undergoing surgery at Chung-Ang University Hospital (Feb 2018–May 2023) were reviewed by two abdominal radiologists to measure the largest visible lymph nodes by station, with measurable nodes matched to pathology records. Results: Among 136 advanced cases, poorly cohesive carcinoma occurred in 19.1%; 216 of 427 measurable nodes were malignant, and metastatic nodes were smaller in poorly cohesive carcinoma (6.226 vs 8.825 mm). Cut-off was 6 mm versus 8 mm. Conclusion: Lowering the CT size threshold to 6 mm may improve pre-operative evaluation.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-significance-of-small-lymph-nodes-on-ct-for-advanced-poorly-cohesive-gastric-carcinoma/349856/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-significance-of-small-lymph-nodes-on-ct-for-advanced-poorly-cohesive-gastric-carcinoma/349856.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Asher","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-27","2026-09-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What was the objective of the study regarding CT findings?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"To evaluate the size of metastatic lymph nodes on pre-operative CT in advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma and to determine whether differences exist across histological types.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How were metastatic lymph nodes determined in the study?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Radiologists reviewed pre-operative abdominal CT scans to identify and measure visible lymph nodes by station, and measurable nodes were correlated with the full pathology report from electronic database records.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What CT lymph node size threshold did the study recommend for poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The best cut-off size for metastatic lymph nodes was 6 mm in poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma, compared with 8 mm in other gastric cancer types.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},349856,1790153029,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":106,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},687197207639,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Cho et al. Cancer Imaging (2026) 26:27 [https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-026-00991-4](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-026-00991-4)  \nCancer Imaging  \nRESEARCH Open Access  \nThe significance of small lymph nodes on CT for advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma  \nGyeongme Cho1†, Jae Yong Park2†, Eun Sun Lee1*, Hyun Ho Shin2, Hyun-Wook Park3, Hyun Jeong Park 1, Hee Sung Kim4, Jong Won Kim5, Beom Jin Kim2 and Jae Gyu Kim2  \nAbstract  \nObjective This study aims to assess the size of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma (PC-GC) on pre-operative CT and to evaluate potential differences based on histological types.  \nMethods We included advanced gastric cancer patients who underwent surgery at Chung-Ang University Hospital from February 2018 to May 2023. Two abdominal radiologists, in consensus, reviewed abdominal CT scans to evaluate the presence of gastric cancer and the largest size of visible LNs at each gastric LN station on CT scans. Measurable LNs were correlated with the full pathology report from electronic database records to determine the metastatic status. We used the independent t-test to evaluate the size difference of metastatic LNs across different histologic types.  \nResults We evaluated a total of 136 patients (mean age, 67.25 ± 11 . 97; 91 males) with advanced gastric cancers. Among them, PC-GC was found in 26 patients (19 . 1%) . Out of 427 measurable LNs, 216 were identified as malignant based on the pathology report. metastatic LNs in PC-GC were significantly smaller than metastatic LNs in other types of gastric cancer (p \u003C 0. 001, mean ± standard deviation, 6.226 ± 2.538 mm vs. 8.825 ± 5.598 mm) . The best cut-off size of the metastatic LNs was 6 mm in PC-GC, as compared with 8 mm in other types of gastric cancers.  \nConclusions The size of metastatic LNs in advanced PC-GCs is significantly smaller than metastatic LNs in other types of gastric cancer. Therefore, lowering the size threshold to 6 mm could enhance pre-operative CT evaluation of metastatic LNs in PC-GC.  \nKeywords Gastric cancer, Lymph nodes, Metastasis, Multidetector computed tomography  \n†Gyeongme Cho and Jae Yong Park contributed equally as first authors to this work.  \n*Correspondence: Eun Sun Lee [seraph377@gmail.com](seraph377@gmail.com)  \n1Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea  \n2Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea  \n3Department of Preventive Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea  \n4Department of Pathology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea  \n5Department of Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea  \n© The Author(s) 2026. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The)[. The](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The)[ ](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The)Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ([http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)) applies to the data made available in this article","cbCailnNDcmhAFLk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailnNDcmhAFLk","pdf",2486460,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Gastric cancer background and classification\n## Prognosis and clinical characteristics of poorly cohesive carcinoma\n## Lymph node metastasis and its role","[{\"question\":\"What was the objective of the study regarding CT findings?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate the size of metastatic lymph nodes on pre-operative CT in advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma and to determine whether differences exist across histological types.\"},{\"question\":\"How were metastatic lymph nodes determined in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Radiologists reviewed pre-operative abdominal CT scans to identify and measure visible lymph nodes by station, and measurable nodes were correlated with the full pathology report from electronic database records.\"},{\"question\":\"What CT lymph node size threshold did the study recommend for poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma?\",\"answer\":\"The best cut-off size for metastatic lymph nodes was 6 mm in poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma, compared with 8 mm in other gastric cancer types.\"}]","The significance of small lymph nodes on CT for advanced poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma | PDF",1790085996,25]