Can visceral fat parameters based on computed tomography be used to predict occult peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer?

doi:10.3748/wjg.v29.i15.2310

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 29, Issue 15

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 (3783)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

119

WORD

HTML

2361

Figures (1-3)

368

Tables (1-5)

296

Sum=3182

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

149

Download

452

Sum=601

Apr 21, 2023 (publication date) through Jul 17, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (3)

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

Case Control Study

World J Gastroenterol. Apr 21, 2023; 29(15): 2310-2321
Published online Apr 21, 2023. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i15.2310

Table 1 Comparison of clinical and computed tomography characteristics between two groups, n (%)

Variable		PM (-) (n = 85)	PM (+) (n = 43)	P value
Sex	Male	60 (70.6)	24 (55.8)	0.096
	Female	25 (29.4)	19 (44.2)
Age (yr) (mean ± SD)		56.44±12.63	61.25±11.11	0.029¹
Pathological type	Adenocarcinoma	83 (97.6)	38 (88.4)	0.077
Pathological type	Non-adenocarcinoma	2 (2.4)	5 (11.6)
Differentiation	Poorly differentiated	50 (58.8)	30 (69.8)	0.227
	Moderately and well differentiated	35 (41.2)	13 (30.2)
CEA	Normal	74 (87.1)	37 (86.0)	0.873
	Elevated	11 (12.9)	6 (14.0)
CA199	Normal	74 (87.1)	32 (74.4)	0.073
	Elevated	11 (12.9)	11 (25.6)
CA125	Normal	83 (97.6)	37 (86.0)	0.030¹
	Elevated	2 (2.4)	6 (14.0)
Location	Cardia	44 (51.8)	7 (16.3)	0.001¹
	Body	12 (14.1)	14 (32.6)
	Antrum	20 (23.5)	13 (30.2)
	≥ 2 parts	9 (10.6)	9 (20.9)
Mild ascites	(-)	75 (88.2)	24 (55.8)	0.001¹
	(+)	10 (11.8)	29 (44.2)
cN stage	N0	26 (30.6)	11 (25.6)	0.150
	N1-2	41 (48.2)	16 (37.2)
	N3-4	18 (21.2)	16 (37.2)
cT stage	≤ T3	57 (67.1)	14 (32.6)	0.001¹
	≥ T4	28 (32.9)	29 (67.4)
Thickness (mm), median (IQR)		15.11 (13.02, 18.85)	13.43 (11.28, 17.83)	0.023¹

¹P < 0.05.

PM: Peritoneal metastasis; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA199: Carbohydrate antigen 199; CA125: Carbohydrate antigen 199; IQR: Interquartile range.

Citation: Li LM, Feng LY, Liu CC, Huang WP, Yu Y, Cheng PY, Gao JB. Can visceral fat parameters based on computed tomography be used to predict occult peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer? World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29(15): 2310-2321
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v29/i15/2310.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i15.2310