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 (9513)

All Articles published online

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

Item

Count

PDF

465

WORD

229

HTML

4644

Figures (1-5)

270

Tables (1-4)

230

Sum=5838

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1206

Download

2469

Sum=3675

Sep 21, 2017 (publication date) through Jan 31, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (8)

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 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.

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