Relationship between multi-slice computed tomography features and pathological risk stratification assessment in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Table 2 Association of computed tomography features and malignant potential in patients with gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Factor	Low risk group (n = 101)	High risk group (n = 46)	χ2	P value
Location			0.548	0.76
Fundus	55 (54.5)	28 (60.9)
Body	35 (34.7)	14 (30.4)
Antrum	11 (10.9)	4 (8.7)
Tumor diameter (cm)1			64.928	< 0.001
> 10 cm	1 (1.0)	7 (15.2)
5-10 cm	2 (2.0)	21 (45.7)
≤ 5 cm	98 (97.0)	18 (39.1)
Tumor contours			28.42	< 0.001
Irregular	3 (3.0)	16 (34.8)
Regular	98 (97.0)	30 (65.2)
Ulceration			9.161	0.002
Present	25 (24.8)	23 (50.0)
Absent	76 (75.2)	23 (50.0)
Cystic degeneration or necrosis			23.3	< 0.001
Present	45 (44.6)	40 (87.0)
Absent	56 (55.4)	6 (13.0)
Calcification			0.309	0.578
Present	14 (13.9)	8 (17.4)
Absent	87 (86.1)	38 (82.6)
Growth patterns			14.634	0.001
Mixed	8 (7.9)	13 (28.3)
Endoluminal	69 (68.3)	18 (39.1)
Exophytic	24 (23.8)	15 (32.6)
Lymphadenopathy			5.627	0.018
Present	19 (18.8)	17 (37.0)
Absent	82 (81.2)	29 (63.0)
Enhancement pattern			28.192	< 0.001
Heterogeneous	51 (50.5)	44 (95.7)
Homogenous	50 (49.5)	2 (4.3)
Enhancement degree			5.188	0.075
Marked	12 (11.9)	10 (21.7)
Moderate	83 (82.2)	30 (65.2)
Mild	6 (5.9)	6 (13.0)

¹Fisher’s exact tests were applied to compare the differences.

χ² tests were applied to all other variables.