Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma: Differentiation with helical CT

Mi Suk Park, Jeong Sik Yu, Myeong Jin Kim, Sang Wook Yoon, SeHoon Kim, Tae Woong Noh, Kwang Hun Lee, Jong Tae Lee, Hyung Sik Yoo, Ki Whang Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the capability of helical computed tomography (CT) to assist in the differentiation between mucinous and nonmucinous gastric carcinomas, with a focus on the thickened stomach wall itself. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 62 patients with pathologically proved mucinous (n = 21) or nonmucinous (n = 41) gastric carcinomas, contrast material-enhanced helical CT images were obtained. The gross appearance, contrast enhancement pattern, predominant thickened layer, and degree of enhancement were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher exact, X2, and Student t tests. A P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The most common type of gross appearance in both carcinomas was fungating: It occurred in 71% of patients with mucinous carcinomas and in 59% of patients with nonmucinous carcinomas. The next most common gross appearance type was ulcerative (24% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and diffusely infiltrative (29% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .009). The most common contrast enhancement pattern was homogeneous (61% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and layered (62% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .001). These findings were significantly different. The predominantly affected thickened layer was the high-attenuating inner layer or the entire layer (88% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and the low-attenuating middle or outer layer (57% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas. Only two mucinous tumors showed miliary punctate calcifications in infiltrative lesions. CONCLUSION: Helical CT may assist in distinguishing mucinous from nonmucinous gastric carcinoma, primarily on the basis of enhancement pattern, predominant layer of the thickened wall, gross appearance, and presence of calcifications.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)540-546
Number of pages7
JournalRadiology
Volume223
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Spiral Computed Tomography
Stomach
Carcinoma
Mucinous Adenocarcinoma
Contrast Media
Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Park, M. S., Yu, J. S., Kim, M. J., Yoon, S. W., Kim, S., Noh, T. W., ... Kim, K. W. (2002). Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma: Differentiation with helical CT. Radiology, 223(2), 540-546. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2232010905
Park, Mi Suk ; Yu, Jeong Sik ; Kim, Myeong Jin ; Yoon, Sang Wook ; Kim, SeHoon ; Noh, Tae Woong ; Lee, Kwang Hun ; Lee, Jong Tae ; Yoo, Hyung Sik ; Kim, Ki Whang. / Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma : Differentiation with helical CT. In: Radiology. 2002 ; Vol. 223, No. 2. pp. 540-546.
@article{672c47ff5d104abb89e485f1f8586ff1,
title = "Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma: Differentiation with helical CT",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To assess the capability of helical computed tomography (CT) to assist in the differentiation between mucinous and nonmucinous gastric carcinomas, with a focus on the thickened stomach wall itself. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 62 patients with pathologically proved mucinous (n = 21) or nonmucinous (n = 41) gastric carcinomas, contrast material-enhanced helical CT images were obtained. The gross appearance, contrast enhancement pattern, predominant thickened layer, and degree of enhancement were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher exact, X2, and Student t tests. A P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The most common type of gross appearance in both carcinomas was fungating: It occurred in 71{\%} of patients with mucinous carcinomas and in 59{\%} of patients with nonmucinous carcinomas. The next most common gross appearance type was ulcerative (24{\%} of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and diffusely infiltrative (29{\%} of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .009). The most common contrast enhancement pattern was homogeneous (61{\%} of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and layered (62{\%} of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .001). These findings were significantly different. The predominantly affected thickened layer was the high-attenuating inner layer or the entire layer (88{\%} of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and the low-attenuating middle or outer layer (57{\%} of patients) in mucinous carcinomas. Only two mucinous tumors showed miliary punctate calcifications in infiltrative lesions. CONCLUSION: Helical CT may assist in distinguishing mucinous from nonmucinous gastric carcinoma, primarily on the basis of enhancement pattern, predominant layer of the thickened wall, gross appearance, and presence of calcifications.",
author = "Park, {Mi Suk} and Yu, {Jeong Sik} and Kim, {Myeong Jin} and Yoon, {Sang Wook} and SeHoon Kim and Noh, {Tae Woong} and Lee, {Kwang Hun} and Lee, {Jong Tae} and Yoo, {Hyung Sik} and Kim, {Ki Whang}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2232010905",
language = "English",
volume = "223",
pages = "540--546",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Park, MS, Yu, JS, Kim, MJ, Yoon, SW, Kim, S, Noh, TW, Lee, KH, Lee, JT, Yoo, HS & Kim, KW 2002, 'Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma: Differentiation with helical CT', Radiology, vol. 223, no. 2, pp. 540-546. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2232010905

Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma : Differentiation with helical CT. / Park, Mi Suk; Yu, Jeong Sik; Kim, Myeong Jin; Yoon, Sang Wook; Kim, SeHoon; Noh, Tae Woong; Lee, Kwang Hun; Lee, Jong Tae; Yoo, Hyung Sik; Kim, Ki Whang.

In: Radiology, Vol. 223, No. 2, 01.01.2002, p. 540-546.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mucinous versus nonmucinous gastric carcinoma

T2 - Differentiation with helical CT

AU - Park, Mi Suk

AU - Yu, Jeong Sik

AU - Kim, Myeong Jin

AU - Yoon, Sang Wook

AU - Kim, SeHoon

AU - Noh, Tae Woong

AU - Lee, Kwang Hun

AU - Lee, Jong Tae

AU - Yoo, Hyung Sik

AU - Kim, Ki Whang

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - PURPOSE: To assess the capability of helical computed tomography (CT) to assist in the differentiation between mucinous and nonmucinous gastric carcinomas, with a focus on the thickened stomach wall itself. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 62 patients with pathologically proved mucinous (n = 21) or nonmucinous (n = 41) gastric carcinomas, contrast material-enhanced helical CT images were obtained. The gross appearance, contrast enhancement pattern, predominant thickened layer, and degree of enhancement were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher exact, X2, and Student t tests. A P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The most common type of gross appearance in both carcinomas was fungating: It occurred in 71% of patients with mucinous carcinomas and in 59% of patients with nonmucinous carcinomas. The next most common gross appearance type was ulcerative (24% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and diffusely infiltrative (29% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .009). The most common contrast enhancement pattern was homogeneous (61% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and layered (62% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .001). These findings were significantly different. The predominantly affected thickened layer was the high-attenuating inner layer or the entire layer (88% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and the low-attenuating middle or outer layer (57% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas. Only two mucinous tumors showed miliary punctate calcifications in infiltrative lesions. CONCLUSION: Helical CT may assist in distinguishing mucinous from nonmucinous gastric carcinoma, primarily on the basis of enhancement pattern, predominant layer of the thickened wall, gross appearance, and presence of calcifications.

AB - PURPOSE: To assess the capability of helical computed tomography (CT) to assist in the differentiation between mucinous and nonmucinous gastric carcinomas, with a focus on the thickened stomach wall itself. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 62 patients with pathologically proved mucinous (n = 21) or nonmucinous (n = 41) gastric carcinomas, contrast material-enhanced helical CT images were obtained. The gross appearance, contrast enhancement pattern, predominant thickened layer, and degree of enhancement were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher exact, X2, and Student t tests. A P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The most common type of gross appearance in both carcinomas was fungating: It occurred in 71% of patients with mucinous carcinomas and in 59% of patients with nonmucinous carcinomas. The next most common gross appearance type was ulcerative (24% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and diffusely infiltrative (29% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .009). The most common contrast enhancement pattern was homogeneous (61% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and layered (62% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas (P = .001). These findings were significantly different. The predominantly affected thickened layer was the high-attenuating inner layer or the entire layer (88% of patients) in nonmucinous carcinomas and the low-attenuating middle or outer layer (57% of patients) in mucinous carcinomas. Only two mucinous tumors showed miliary punctate calcifications in infiltrative lesions. CONCLUSION: Helical CT may assist in distinguishing mucinous from nonmucinous gastric carcinoma, primarily on the basis of enhancement pattern, predominant layer of the thickened wall, gross appearance, and presence of calcifications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036235077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036235077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2232010905

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2232010905

M3 - Article

C2 - 11997565

AN - SCOPUS:0036235077

VL - 223

SP - 540

EP - 546

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -