Incomplete TNM Documentation in Gastric Cancer: Frequency, Phenotype, and Treatment Allocation

TL;DR

This study finds that incomplete TNM staging is common in gastric cancer and affects treatment decisions, with surgery being less common in advanced cases.

Contribution

The paper introduces a pragmatic framework for interpreting advanced gastric cancer phenotypes and treatment allocation in real-world settings.

Findings

Incomplete TNM staging was observed in 36.8% of gastric cancer patients.

Surgery was significantly less frequent in patients with metastatic disease (M1) compared to non-metastatic (M0).

Phenotype-based summaries showed marked differences in surgical allocation across stages.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Real-world gastric cancer cohorts often show incomplete TNM documentation, which can affect the interpretation of stage, phenotype, and treatment allocation. We aimed to quantify staging completeness, describe advanced-disease phenotype, and examine treatment selection at diagnosis in a real-world gastric cancer cohort. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients diagnosed with gastric cancer at a tertiary referral center. Data included age, sex, TNM components, metastatic status, surgery (any vs. none), and available serum markers (CEA, CA19-9). Incomplete staging was defined a priori as Tx and/or Nx and/or Mx. The primary endpoint was metastatic disease at diagnosis (M1) among patients with defined M status. In TNM-complete cases, a composite locally advanced or metastatic endpoint (LAM: M1 or T4 or N2–N3) supported sensitivity analyses. Logistic regression assessed associations with M1 and treatment allocation without biomarker cut-offs (markers modeled as continuous covariates). Results: The cohort included 419 patients. Incomplete staging was observed in 36.8%. M status was defined in 89.5%, with M1 in 52.0% of M-defined cases. Surgery was less frequent in M1 than M0 patients (34.4% vs. 73.3%; p < 0.001). Phenotype stratification showed a marked difference in surgical allocation, which was highest in M0-LAM (89.1%) and lowest in M1 (48.4%). Marker associations were directionally coherent but not definitive. Conclusions: Incomplete staging is common and clinically relevant in real-world gastric cancer and should be reported explicitly. Phenotype-based summaries provide a pragmatic framework for interpreting advanced disease and treatment selection, while tumor markers should be interpreted cautiously without predefined cut-offs.

Figures