Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Oct 15, 2022; 14(10): 2004-2013
Published online Oct 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i10.2004
Published online Oct 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i10.2004
Table 1 National Institutes of Health evaluation criteria for gastric stromal tumor pathological risk
| GST Hazard classification | Lesion diameter (cm) | Mitosis (/50HPF) | Primary tumor location |
| Very low risk | < 2.0 | ≤ 5.0 | Any position |
| Low risk | 2.1 - 5.0 | ≤ 5.0 | Any position |
| Medium risk | 2.1 - 5.0 | > 5.0 | Stomach |
| < 5.0 | 6.0 - 1.0 | Any position | |
| 5.0 - 10.0 | ≤ 5.0 | Stomach | |
| High risk | Any case | Any case | Tumor rupture |
| > 10.0 | Any case | Any position | |
| Any case | > 10.0 | Any position | |
| > 5.0 | > 5.0 | Any position | |
| 2.1 - 5.0 | > 5.0 | Non-stomach | |
| 5.0 - 10.0 | ≤ 5.0 | Non-stomach |
Table 2 Comparison of baseline data between gastric stromal tumor group and control group, n (%)
| Normal information | GST group (n = 64) | Control group (n = 60) | t/χ2 value | P value |
| Age (yr) | 56.9 ± 8.2 | 59.0 ± 7.5 | -1.485 | 0.140 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.7 ± 2.4 | 24.4 ± 2.3 | 0.710 | 0.479 |
| Lesion diameter (cm) | 2.98 ± 0.77 | 3.05 ± 0.80 | -0.496 | 0.620 |
| Gender | 1.542 | 0.214 | ||
| Male | 37 (57.81) | 28 (46.67) | ||
| Female | 27 (42.19) | 32 (53.33) | ||
| Smoking | 1.663 | 0.197 | ||
| Yes | 24 (37.5) | 16 (26.67) | ||
| No | 40 (62.5) | 44 (73.33) | ||
| Drinking | 1.592 | 0.207 | ||
| Yes | 25 (39.06) | 17 (28.33) | ||
| No | 39 (60.94) | 43 (71.67) | ||
| Diabetes | 0.776 | 0.378 | ||
| Yes | 9 (14.06) | 12 (20.00) | ||
| No | 55 (85.94) | 48 (80.00) | ||
| Hypertension | 2.940 | 0.086 | ||
| Yes | 15 (23.44) | 7 (11.67) | ||
| No | 49 (76.56) | 53 (88.33) |
Table 3 Comparison of computed tomography signs and parameters between gastric stromal tumor group and control group, n (%)
| CT signs | GST group (n = 64) | Control group (n = 60) | χ2 value | P value |
| Lesion location | 4.174 | 0.383 | ||
| Fundus of stomach | 12 (18.75) | 14 (23.33) | ||
| Cardia | 6 (9.38) | 8 (13.33) | ||
| Greater curvature of the stomach | 26 (40.63) | 17 (28.33) | ||
| Lesser curvature of stomach | 11 (17.19) | 7 (11.67) | ||
| Gastric antrum | 9 (14.06) | 14 (23.33) | ||
| Tumor shape | 3.228 | 0.072 | ||
| Smooth | 50 (78.13) | 54 (90.00) | ||
| Lobulated | 14 (21.88) | 6 (10.00) | ||
| Growth pattern | 41.177 | 0.000 | ||
| Intraluminal | 22 (34.38) | 54 (90.00) | ||
| Extraluminal | 32 (50.00) | 6 (10.00) | ||
| Mixed way | 10 (15.63) | 0 (0.00) | ||
| Calcification | 1.166 | 0.280 | ||
| Yes | 5 (7.81) | 2 (3.33) | ||
| No | 59 (92.19) | 58 (96.67) | ||
| Lesion border | 31.312 | 0.000 | ||
| Clear | 11 (17.19) | 40 (66.67) | ||
| Blurry | 53 (82.81) | 20 (33.33) | ||
| Reinforcement | 3.725 | 0.054 | ||
| Uniform | 54 (84.38) | 57 (95.00) | ||
| Uneven | 10 (15.63) | 3 (5.00) | ||
| Ulcer | 9.771 | 0.002 | ||
| Yes | 18 (28.13) | 4 (6.67) | ||
| No | 46 (71.88) | 56 (93.33) |
Table 4 Comparison of computed tomography values between gastric stromal tumor group and control group (mean ± SD, HU)
| Groups | n | Arterial phase | Venous phase | Delay period | Reinforcement peak |
| GST group | 64 | 63.98 ± 14.38 | 59.04 ± 12.74 | 66.58 ± 11.47 | 75.58 ± 12.88 |
| Control group | 60 | 47.61 ± 11.04 | 56.48 ± 14.20 | 64.72 ± 9.83 | 64.46 ± 10.94 |
| t value | -7.137 | -1.054 | -0.971 | -5.192 | |
| P value | 0.000 | 0.294 | 0.333 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Multi-slice spiral computed tomography differential diagnosis of gastric stromal tumor and gastric polyps 2 × 2 four-table table
| MSCT | Pathology | Total | |
| GST | Benign polyp | ||
| GST | 47 | 10 | 57 |
| Benign polyp | 17 | 50 | 67 |
| Total | 64 | 60 | 124 |
Table 6 Comparison of computed tomography sign parameters in gastric stromal tumor groups with different risk classes, n (%)
| CT signs | Low-intermediate-risk group (n = 41) | High-risk group (n = 23) | χ2 value | P value |
| Lesion location | 2.180 | 0.703 | ||
| Fundus of stomach | 7 (17.07) | 5 (21.74) | ||
| Cardia | 4 (9.76) | 2 (8.70) | ||
| Greater curvature of the stomach | 15 (36.59) | 11 (47.83) | ||
| Lesser curvature of stomach | 9 (21.95) | 2 (8.70) | ||
| Gastric antrum | 6 (14.63) | 3 (13.04) | ||
| Tumor shape | 1.539 | 0.215 | ||
| Smooth | 34 (82.93) | 16 (69.57) | ||
| Lobulated | 7 (17.07) | 7 (30.43) | ||
| Growth pattern | 5.520 | 0.063 | ||
| Intraluminal | 17 (41.46) | 5 (21.74) | ||
| Extraluminal | 16 (39.02) | 16 (69.57) | ||
| Mixed way | 8 (19.51) | 2 (8.70) | ||
| Calcification | 0.039 | 0.844 | ||
| Yes | 3 (7.32) | 2 (8.70) | ||
| No | 38 (92.68) | 21 (91.3) | ||
| Lesion border | 4.158 | 0.041 | ||
| Clear | 10 (24.39) | 1 (4.35) | ||
| Blurry | 31 (75.61) | 22 (95.65) | ||
| Reinforcement | 0.181 | 0.670 | ||
| Uniform | 34 (82.93) | 20 (86.96) | ||
| Uneven | 7 (17.07) | 3 (13.04) | ||
| Ulcer | 4.187 | 0.041 | ||
| Yes | 8 (19.51) | 10 (43.48) | ||
| No | 33 (80.49) | 13 (56.52) |
Table 7 Comparison of computed tomography values of patients in gastric stromal tumor groups with different risk classes (mean ± SD)
| Group | n | Arterial phase | Venous phase | Delay period | Reinforcement peak |
| Low-intermediate-risk group | 41 | 55.71 ± 13.77 | 57.94 ± 12.51 | 64.83 ± 11.20 | 72.66 ± 12.46 |
| High-risk group | 23 | 78.72 ± 12.66 | 61.00 ± 11.96 | 69.70 ± 10.85 | 80.79 ± 12.37 |
| t value | -6.598 | -0.954 | -1.688 | -2.511 | |
| P value | 0.000 | 0.344 | 0.097 | 0.015 |
- Citation: Li XL, Han PF, Wang W, Shao LW, Wang YW. Multi-slice spiral computed tomography in differential diagnosis of gastric stromal tumors and benign gastric polyps, and gastric stromal tumor risk stratification assessment. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2022; 14(10): 2004-2013
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v14/i10/2004.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v14.i10.2004