Mucinous adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma: differing clinicopathological characteristics and computed tomography features in gastric cancer
PDF | HTML | How to cite
Metrics: PDF 1393 views | HTML 2021 views | ?
Jianxi Zhao1,*, Gang Ren1, Rong Cai2, Jian Chen1,*, Huali Li1, Chen Guo1, Wenguang He1, Xiangru Wu3 and Wenjie Zhang4
1 Department of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China
2 Department of Radiotherapy, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
3 Department of Pathology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China
4 Department of Surgery, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China
*These authors have contributed equally to this work
Gang Ren, email: [email protected]
Rong Cai, email: [email protected]
Keywords: mucinous gastric carcinoma, non-mucinous gastric carcinoma, clinicopathological characteristics, computed tomography
Received: August 19, 2016 Accepted: April 06, 2017 Published: April 24, 2017
Mucinous gastric carcinoma (MGC) is a rare histological subtype of gastric cancer. The clinicopathological characteristics and CT features of MGC remain controversial. This study aimed to determine the clinicopathological characteristics and CT features of MGC. We reviewed 62 patients with MGC and 104 patients with non-mucinous gastric carcinoma (NMGC), pathologically confirmed between 2003 and 2015. There are significant differences in some clinicopathological characteristics and CT features between MGC and NMGC. NMGC occurs preferentially in males and more frequently in the lower third of the stomach. Patients with MGC were characterized by larger tumor size, more advanced tumor stages (II and III) and fewer lymphatic invasions. Layered enhancement (83.3%) was the main pattern of MGC, while the most common pattern in NMGC was homogeneous enhancement (52.6%), followed by heterogonous enhancement (34.6%). The degree of enhancement of the inner layer in MGC was significantly higher than in NMGC (ΔCT of portal venous phase: 54.57 Hu vs. 47.19 Hu, P = 0.034), while the middle or outer layer in MGC was significantly less enhanced (ΔCT of portal venous phase: 19.07 Hu vs. 33.09 Hu, P <0.001). Calcifications were more common in MGC (P <0.001). ROC curves revealed that the most effective variables in distinguishing MGC and NMGC were ΔCT of the middle or outer layer in the arterial phase (AUC=0.774) and portal venous phase (AUC=0.774), followed by the attenuation value of the middle or outer layer in the unenhanced phase (AUC=0.763). Calcifications had a high specificity (98.7%) in the diagnosis of MGC. The accuracy (86.1%), sensitivity (83.3%) and specificity (87.2%) of layered enhancement in diagnosing MGC were all high. Therefore, MGC was more likely to have larger tumor size and more advanced tumor stage (II and III) than NMGC. The thicker gastric wall, layered enhancement pattern and calcification were highly suggestive CT features for differentiating MGC from NMGC.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.