Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography assessment of gastric cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Table 1 Patient’s clinical data and pathological features (n = 43)

Characteristic	Assessable patients with Mandard’s TRG		P value
	Histopathologic responders	Histopathologic non-responders
No.	27	16
Age (yr), mean (range)	68.7 (34-75)	62.2 (39-79)	0.370
Gender			0.429
Male	19	13
Female	8	3
Histological type			0.934
Well differentiated	4	2
Moderately differentiated	6	5
Poorly differentiated	12	5
Signet ring cell type	5	4
Tumour size, cm (mean ± SD)	15.7 ± 7.4	33.3 ± 14.1	0.003
Tumour site			0.376
Fundus and cardia	3	4
Body	7	5
Antrum and pylorus	17	7
Pathological T classification			0.475
T4a	22	13
T4b	5	3
Pathological N classification
N-	8	4	0.744
N+	19	12
Chemotherapy
FOLFOX	15	9	0.965
SOX	12	7
Chemotherapy cycle			0.432
2	12	4
3	12	10
4	3	2

TRG: Tumor regression grade.

Table 2 Comparison between computed tomography and double contrast-enhanced ultrasound for neoadjuvant chemotherapy response assessment n (%)

	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy	χ2	P value
CT	13 (48.1)	10 (62.5)	13 (66.7)	10 (41.7)	23 (53.5)	0.427	0.663
DCUS	17 (62.9)	9 (56.3)	17 (70.8)	9 (47.4)	26 (60.5)

Double contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCUS) had an overall accuracy of 60.5%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 70.8%. NPV: Negative predictive value; CT: Computed tomography.