4.6 Article

Primary Gastro-Intestinal Lymphoma and Gastro-Intestinal Adenocarcinoma: An Initial Study of CT Texture Analysis as Quantitative Biomarkers for Differentiation

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11030264

关键词

gastrointestinal tract; lymphoma; adenocarcinoma; diagnosis; multidetector computed tomography

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771801, 81801695, 81701657, 81571642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CT texture analysis can provide valuable information for the differential diagnosis of primary gastrointestinal lymphoma and gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma, serving as a potential adjunct tool in clinical practice.
Background: To explore the potential role of computed tomography (CT) texture analysis and an imaging biomarker in differentiating primary gastro-intestinal lymphoma (PGIL) from gastro-intestinal adenocarcinoma (GIAC). Methods: A total of 131 patients with surgical pathologically PGIL and GIAC were enrolled in this study. Histogram parameters of arterial and venous phases extracted from contrast enhanced modified discrete cosine transform (MDCT) images were compared between PGIL and GIAC by Mann-Whitney U tests. The optimal parameters for differentiating these two groups were obtained through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Results: Compared with GIAC, in arterial phase, PGIL had statistically higher 5th, 10th percentiles (p = 0.003 and 0.011) and statistically lower entropy (p = 0.001). In the venous phase, PGIL had statistically lower mean, median, 75th, 90th, 95th percentiles, and entropy (p = 0.036, 0.029, 0.007, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). For differentiating PGIL from GIAC, V-median + A-5th percentile was an optimal parameter for combined diagnosis (AUC = 0.746, p < 0.0001), and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 81.7 and 64.8%, respectively. Conclusion: CT texture analysis could be useful for differential diagnosis of PGIL and GIAC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据