Evaluation of recurrence in gastric carcinoma: Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography

Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)

Characteristics		Recurrence group (n = 60)	Control group (n = 60)
				P value
Age (yr)	Median	60.6	65	0.755
	Range	29-80	35-85
Sex	Male	37 (62)	16 (27)	0.172
	Female	23 (38)	44 (73)
Operation	Total gastrectomy	17 (28)	12 (20)	0.286
	Subtotal gastrectomy	43 (72)	48 (80)
AJCC stage	IA	0 (0)	33 (55)	< 0.001
	IB	5 (8)	10 (17)
	IIA	7 (12)	9 (15)
	IIB	9 (15)	3 (5)
	IIIA	7 (12)	1 (2)
	IIIB	10 (16)	2 (3)
	IIIC	15 (25)	2 (3)
	IV	7 (12)	0 (0)
Pathology	Adenocarcinoma	51 (85)	55 (92)	0.454
	Signet ring cell carcinoma	5 (8)	2 (3)
	Mucinous adenocarcinoma	4 (7)	3 (5)
Interval between CT and PET/CT (d)	Median	5.9	2.8	< 0.001
	Range	0-28	0-9

AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer (7^th edition); CT: Computed tomography; PET/CT: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Table 2 Locations of recurrent lesions

Location	Number of lesions n (%)
Locoregional recurrence	10 (13)
Lymph node recurrence	24 (30)
Liver metastasis	3 (4)
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	24 (30)
Other recurrence1	18 (23)
Total	79 (100)

¹Other recurrence included intestine, bone, ovary, etc.

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
	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.

Table 4 Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of recurrence according to pathological type

Type	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)
Adenocarcinoma	CT	98 (50/51)	95 (52/55)	94 (50/53)	98 (52/53)	96 (102/106)	0.035
	PET/CT	80 (41/51)	95 (52/55)	93 (41/44)	84 (52/62)	88 (93/106)
Signet ring cell carcinoma	CT	100 (5/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (5/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (7/7)	1
	PET/CT	80 (4/5)	100 (2/2)	100 (4/4)	67 (2/3)	86 (6/7)
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	CT	75 (3/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (3/3)	75 (3/4)	86 (6/7)	1
	PET/CT	100 (4/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (4/4)	100 (3/3)	100 (7/7)

Numbers in parentheses are raw data. CT: Computed tomography; PET/CT: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography.