This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Jian Wang
Department of Radiology, TongDe Hospital of ZheJiang Province, No.234, Gucui Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Gastric ectopic pancreas (GEPs) is a rare developmental anomaly which is difficult to differentiate it from submucosal tumor such as gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) by imaging methods. So we retrospectively investigated the CT features of them to help us make the correct diagnosis.
Materials and Methods
This study enrolled 17 GEPs and 119 GSTs, which were proven pathologically. We assessed clinical and CT features to identify significant differential features of GEPs from GSTs using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
In univariate analysis, among all clinicoradiologic features, features of age, symptom, tumor marker, location, contour, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis, calcification, CT attenuation value of unenhancement phase/arterial phase/portal venous phase (CTu/CTa/CTp), the CT attenuation value of arterial phase/portal venous phase minus that of unenhanced phase (DEAP/DEPP), long diameter (LD), short diameter (SD) were considered statistically significant for the differentiation of them. And the multivariate analysis revealed that location, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis and DEPP were independent factors affecting the identification of them.What's more, ROC analysis showed that the test efficiency of CTp was perfect(AUC= 0.900).
Conclusion
Location, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis and DEPP are useful CT differentiators of GEPs from GSTs. In addition, the test efficiency of CTp in differentiating them was perfect (AUC=0.900).
Keywords
Gastric ectopic pancreas, Gastric stromal tumor, Subepithelial tumors, Gastric neoplasm, Computed Tomography
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 20 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Oncology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research
Jian Wang
Department of Radiology, TongDe Hospital of ZheJiang Province, No.234, Gucui Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 20 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Oncology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Gastric ectopic pancreas (GEPs) is a rare developmental anomaly which is difficult to differentiate it from submucosal tumor such as gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) by imaging methods. So we retrospectively investigated the CT features of them to help us make the correct diagnosis.
Materials and Methods
This study enrolled 17 GEPs and 119 GSTs, which were proven pathologically. We assessed clinical and CT features to identify significant differential features of GEPs from GSTs using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
In univariate analysis, among all clinicoradiologic features, features of age, symptom, tumor marker, location, contour, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis, calcification, CT attenuation value of unenhancement phase/arterial phase/portal venous phase (CTu/CTa/CTp), the CT attenuation value of arterial phase/portal venous phase minus that of unenhanced phase (DEAP/DEPP), long diameter (LD), short diameter (SD) were considered statistically significant for the differentiation of them. And the multivariate analysis revealed that location, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis and DEPP were independent factors affecting the identification of them.What's more, ROC analysis showed that the test efficiency of CTp was perfect(AUC= 0.900).
Conclusion
Location, blurred serosa or fat-line of peritumor, necrosis and DEPP are useful CT differentiators of GEPs from GSTs. In addition, the test efficiency of CTp in differentiating them was perfect (AUC=0.900).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...