4.7 Article

Prediction of Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors before Operation: A Retrospective Analysis of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12020297

Keywords

diagnosis; gastrointestinal stromal tumor; gastric subepithelial tumor; stomach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to predict the diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (GSETs) through a retrospective review. The results showed that age, hemoglobin levels, and computed tomography results can predict the risk of GISTs.
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leiomyomas, and schwannomas are the most common gastric subepithelial tumors (GSETs) with similar endoscopic findings. Preoperative prediction of GSETs is difficult. This study analyzed and predicted GSET diagnosis through a retrospective review of 395 patients who underwent surgical resection of GISTs, leiomyomas, and schwannomas measuring 2-10 cm. GSETs were divided by size (group 2-5, >2 and <= 5 cm; group 5-10, >5 and <= 10 cm) for analysis. Demographics, clinical symptoms, and images were analyzed. A recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to identify optimal classifications for specific GSET diagnoses. GIST patients were relatively older than other patients. Both groups had higher proportions of UGI bleeding, lower hemoglobin (Hb) levels, and a higher ratio of necrosis on their computed tomography (CT) scans. The RPA tree showed that (a) age <= 55, Hb >= 10.7, and CT necrosis; (b) age <= 55 and Hb < 10.7; (c) age >55 and Hb < 12.9; and (d) age >55 and CT hetero-/homogeneity can predict high GIST risk in group 2-5. Positive or negative CT necrosis, with age >55, can predict high GIST risk in group 5-10. GIST patients were older and presented with low Hb levels and tumor necrosis. In RPA, the accuracy reached 85% and 89% in groups 2-5 and 5-10, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available