Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography

doi:10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6448

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 23, Issue 35

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (8125)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

425

WORD

222

HTML

3930

Figures (1-5)

144

Tables (1-4)

121

Sum=4842

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1114

Download

2169

Sum=3283

Sep 21, 2017 (publication date) through Apr 25, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (6)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2017; 23(35): 6448-6456
Published online Sep 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6448

Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)

Characteristics		Recurrence group (n = 60)	Control group (n = 60)
Characteristics		Recurrence group (n = 60)	Control group (n = 60)	P value
Age (yr)	Median	60.6	65	0.755
	Range	29-80	35-85
Sex	Male	37 (62)	16 (27)	0.172
	Female	23 (38)	44 (73)
Operation	Total gastrectomy	17 (28)	12 (20)	0.286
	Subtotal gastrectomy	43 (72)	48 (80)
AJCC stage	IA	0 (0)	33 (55)	< 0.001
	IB	5 (8)	10 (17)
	IIA	7 (12)	9 (15)
	IIB	9 (15)	3 (5)
	IIIA	7 (12)	1 (2)
	IIIB	10 (16)	2 (3)
	IIIC	15 (25)	2 (3)
	IV	7 (12)	0 (0)
Pathology	Adenocarcinoma	51 (85)	55 (92)	0.454
	Signet ring cell carcinoma	5 (8)	2 (3)
	Mucinous adenocarcinoma	4 (7)	3 (5)
Interval between CT and PET/CT (d)	Median	5.9	2.8	< 0.001
Interval between CT and PET/CT (d)	Range	0-28	0-9

AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer (7^th edition); CT: Computed tomography; PET/CT: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Table 2 Locations of recurrent lesions

Location	Number of lesions n (%)
Locoregional recurrence	10 (13)
Lymph node recurrence	24 (30)
Liver metastasis	3 (4)
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	24 (30)
Other recurrence¹	18 (23)
Total	79 (100)

¹Other recurrence included intestine, bone, ovary, etc.

Table 3 Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of recurrence

Site	Imaging	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Positive predictive value (%)	Negative predictive value (%)	Accuracy (%)	P value
Overall	CT	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (114/120)	0.096
	PET/CT	82 (49/60)	95 (57/60)	94 (49/52)	84 (57/68)	88 (106/120)
Locoregional	CT	80 (8/10)	100 (110/110)	100 (8/8)	98 (112/110)	98 (118/120)	1.000
	PET/CT	80 (8/10)	99 (109/110)	89 (8/9)	98 (109/111)	98 (117/120)
Lymph node	CT	92 (22/24)	99 (95/96)	96 (22/23)	98 (95/97)	98 (117/120)	1.000
	PET/CT	88 (21/24)	99 (95/96)	95 (21/22)	97 (95/98)	97 (116/120)
Liver	CT	67 (2/3)	96 (112/117)	29 (2/7)	99 (112/113)	95 (114/120)	0.688
	PET/CT	100 (3/3)	98 (115/117)	60 (3/5)	100 (115/115)	98 (118/120)
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	CT	96 (23/24)	100 (96/96)	100 (23/23)	99 (96/97)	99 (119/120)	0.001
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	PET/CT	50 (12/24)	100 (96/96)	100 (12/12)	89 (96/108)	90 (108/120)
Total lesion	CT	86 (68/79)	98 (511/521)	87 (68/78)	98 (511/522)	97 (579/600)	0.089
	PET/CT	76 (60/79)	98 (513/521)	88 (60/68)	96 (513/532)	96 (573/600)

Numbers in parentheses are raw data. CT: Computed tomography; PET/CT: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Table 4 Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of recurrence according to pathological type

Type	Imaging	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Positive predictive value (%)	Negative predictive value (%)	Accuracy (%)	P value
Overall	CT	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (58/60)	97 (114/120)	0.096
	PET/CT	82 (49/60)	95 (57/60)	94 (49/52)	84 (57/68)	88 (106/120)
Adenocarcinoma	CT	98 (50/51)	95 (52/55)	94 (50/53)	98 (52/53)	96 (102/106)	0.035
	PET/CT	80 (41/51)	95 (52/55)	93 (41/44)	84 (52/62)	88 (93/106)
Signet ring cell carcinoma	CT	100 (5/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (5/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (7/7)	1
Signet ring cell carcinoma	PET/CT	80 (4/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (4/4)	67 (2/3)	86 (6/7)
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	CT	75 (3/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (3/3)	75 (3/4)	86 (6/7)	1
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	PET/CT	100 (4/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (4/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (7/7)

Numbers in parentheses are raw data. CT: Computed tomography; PET/CT: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Citation: Kim JH, Heo SH, Kim JW, Shin SS, Min JJ, Kwon SY, Jeong YY, Kang HK. Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(35): 6448-6456
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i35/6448.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6448