Gastric carcinoma classification in the WHO 6th edition (2026): Updated framework and emerging entities.

Ryoji Kushima

doi:10.1007/s00428-026-04697-7

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42709193

Gastric carcinoma classification in the WHO 6th edition (2026): Updated framework and emerging entities.

Ryoji Kushima

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The sixth edition of the WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumours (2026) represents an important step in the continuing evolution of gastric carcinoma classification. While preserving morphology as the foundation of diagnosis, it incorporates advances in molecular pathology, genotype-phenotype correlations, tumour evolution, and predictive biomarker assessment. This review summarizes the development of the WHO classification from the third edition (2000) to the sixth edition (2026) and highlights its relationship with other major classification systems, including those of Laurén, Nakamura, and the Japanese Gastric Carcinoma Association (JGCA). Major histological categories remain largely unchanged; however, several important conceptual and diagnostic refinements have been introduced. These include recognition of crawling-type adenocarcinoma as a distinctive variant of tubular adenocarcinoma, subclassification of poorly cohesive carcinoma into signet-ring cell and non-signet-ring cell subtypes, introduction of the concept of pure signet-ring cell carcinoma, and increased emphasis on tumour evolution. The sixth edition also expands and refines the spectrum of uncommon gastric carcinoma subtypes, including gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma, AFP-producing carcinoma, micropapillary adenocarcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic-gland type, and gastric sarcomatoid carcinoma. Crucially, molecular subgroups originally proposed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and actionable biomarkers-including HER2 (ERBB2), Claudin 18.2, mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-have transitioned from research-based categories into essential tools for precision oncology. Rather than providing exhaustive diagnostic criteria, this review offers a conceptual framework and encourages consultation of the original WHO text for full details. These advances illustrate the transition of gastric carcinoma classification from a predominantly morphology-based system toward an integrated histomolecular framework that more closely links pathological diagnosis with tumour biology, prognostication, and therapeutic stratification.

Explore related subjects

Crawling-type adenocarcinoma Gastric adenocarcinoma Poorly cohesive carcinoma Predictive biomarkers WHO classification Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ryoji Kushima. 2026-09-08. Gastric carcinoma classification in the WHO 6th edition (2026): Updated framework and emerging entities.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-026-04697-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Review resource Journal Article subject Predictive biomarkers subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Prevalence of Claudin 18.2 Expression in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a clinically validated therapeutic target in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma following the regulatory approval of zolbetuximab in combination with first-line chemotherapy. Accurate prevalence data at the clinically validated immunohistochemical threshold are essential for patient selection, healthcare resource planning, and treatment strategy. Reported prevalence estimates vary widely across studies due to differences in populations, methodologies, and immunohistochemical protocols. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to generate a robust pooled prevalence estimate of CLDN18.2 expression at the threshold used in pivotal phase III trials. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception through March 12th, 2026. Studies reporting CLDN18.2 expression in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma using the ≥ 75% moderate-to-strong membranous staining threshold were included. Prevalence proportions were pooled using a random-effects model with logit transformation and restricted maximum-likelihood estimation of between-study variance. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q test, and a 95% prediction interval was calculated. Pre-specified subgroup analyses assessed antibody clone and geographic region, with additional exploratory analyses according to disease setting and specimen type. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the pooled estimate. RESULTS: Twenty-two predominantly retrospective cohort studies comprising 12,173 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of CLDN18.2 positivity using a random-effects model was 33.99% (95% CI: 30.13%-38.07%; 95% prediction interval: approximately 18%-55%), with high between-study heterogeneity (I² = 92.4%). Subgroup analysis by antibody clone showed no statistically significant difference between studies using the 43-14 A clone (32.79%, 95% CI: 28.86%-36.97%) and those using other reported antibody clones (41.74%, 95% CI: 26.76%-58.42%; p = 0.281). One study with an unreported antibody clone was excluded from this subgroup analysis. Geographic subgroup analysis excluding the multinational Shitara et al. cohort demonstrated a non-significant trend toward higher prevalence in non-Asian populations (37.85%, 95% CI: 31.59%-44.54%) compared with Asian populations (32.10%, 95% CI: 27.28%-37.34%; p = 0.169). All three sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the pooled estimate. No significant evidence of publication bias was detected (Egger's test p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma express CLDN18.2 at the clinically validated ≥ 75% threshold. However, because the included studies encompassed heterogeneous disease settings and were predominantly HER2-unselected, the pooled estimate should not be interpreted directly as the proportion of patients eligible for zolbetuximab. The estimate was robust across sensitivity analyses and provides an evidence base for understanding CLDN18.2 prevalence and biomarker-testing requirements. Standardisation of immunohistochemical assessment methods is warranted to reduce between-study heterogeneity in future research.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Adjuvant oxaliplatin with S-1 (SOX) versus S-1 for stage II-III gastric cancer (CAPITAL): A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy following D2 gastrectomy constitutes the standard-of-care for resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) carcinoma. The CAPITAL trial is a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study, aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) versus S-1 alone. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed pathological stage II-III gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma after gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the SOX regimen (n = 362) or the S-1 regimen (n = 362). The primary endpoint was overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01795027). FINDINGS: The median follow-up was 74.0 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.5-89.3). The 5-year overall survival rates were 70.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.0-76.1) in the SOX group and 62.9% (95% CI, 57.8-68.5) in the S-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95; p = 0.018). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 71.2% (95% CI, 66.5-76.3) and 66.2% (95% CI, 61.2-71.6) in the SOX group, as compared with 65.1% (95% CI, 60.2-70.5) and 55.6% (95% CI, 50.4-61.3) in the S-1 group (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 87 (25%) of 349 patients in the SOX group and 45 (13%) of 347 patients in the S-1 group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 44 (13%) of 349 patients in the SOX group and 23 (7%) of 347 patients in the S-1 group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of adjuvant oxaliplatin to S-1 chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with gastric cancer. FUNDING: This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82573092 and 82573387).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of fruquintinib versus ramucirumab in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Aim: Fruquintinib (Fruq), a selective VEGFR 1/2/3 inhibitor, showed a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the Phase III FRUTIGA trial for advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Ramucirumab (RAM), an anti-VEGFR2 antibody, demonstrated efficacy in the RAINBOW-Asia trial. This anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) evaluated Fruq plus paclitaxel versus RAM plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for G/GEJ adenocarcinoma in the absence of head-to-head trials. Materials & methods: Data from individual patients in the FRUTIGA study (N = 703) and aggregated data from the RAINBOW-Asia study (N = 440) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were balanced using entropy balancing. The placebo plus paclitaxel (PBO + PTX) groups served as the common comparators. The primary outcome was PFS; secondary outcomes included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also compared as an exploratory outcome using an adjusted indirect risk difference. Sensitivity analyses included restricted mean survival time and simulated treatment comparison. Results: After weighting (effective sample size = 564), baseline covariates were balanced. The anchored MAIC demonstrated that Fruq + PTX significantly improved PFS compared with RAM + PTX (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96; p = 0.0280), corresponding to a 30% reduction in progression risk, with a significant restricted mean survival time benefit of 1.18 months at 20 months (95% CI: 0.08-2.27; p = 0.024). Fruq achieved significantly higher ORR (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.16-2.68; p = 0.008) and DCR (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.33-2.83; p < 0.001). Overall survival was similar (0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; p = 0.8640). Subgroup analyses showed PFS benefits with Fruq in patients with ECOG PS 1, peritoneal metastases and two or fewer metastatic sites. In sensitivity analysis, the simulated treatment comparison also suggested a PFS benefit for Fruq + PTX (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.50; p < 0.0001). For any-grade TEAEs, the indirect comparison showed higher adjusted relative incidences of increased bilirubin with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 12.3%; 95% CI: 2.3-22.4%, p < 0.05) and of hypokalemia (RD: 9.0%; 95% CI: 1.5-16.4%, p < 0.05). For grade ≥3 TEAEs, the adjusted relative incidence of decreased body weight was higher with Fruq + PTX than with RAM + PTX (RD: 2.9%; 95% CI: 0.6-5.2%, p < 0.05). The adjusted relative incidences of increased AST, ALT and hypocalcemia were numerically lower in the fruquintinib group than in the RAM group. Conclusion: This MAIC indicates that Fruq + PTX may be more effective than RAM + PTX in second-line advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, with potentially improved PFS, ORR and DCR, and similar overall survival. Safety analyses suggested generally comparable safety profiles across the two regimens. Fruq + PTX remains a valuable treatment option, offering important comparative evidence for clinical and health technology assessment decisions. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT07144995.

Adult↗