Spiral CT in gastric carcinoma: Comparison with barium study, fiberoptic gastroscopy and histopathology

Table 1 Classification, size and location of gastric carcinoma (n = 60)

Gastric cancer classification Size of the tumor						Size ofthe Tumor
Early			Advanced*			< 1 cm	1-3 cm	> 3 cm
Type 2c	Type 3	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
4 (6.7%)	2 (3.3%)	10(16.7%)	25 (41.7%)	14 (23.3%)	5 (8.3%)	6	24	30
Location of the tumor
		Cardia area	Antrum	Great curv	Lesser curv	Antrum and body
		29	18	5	5	3

Notes: Numbers were patients. Curv. = curvature. *Borrmann's type of classification.

Table 2 Comparison of sensitivities on gastric carcinoma between different techniques

	Detection		Classification
	Early	Advanced	Advanced
SCT	100%	98%	77%
UGI	33%	95%	47%
FG	100%	98%	80%
Chi-Square test
SCT vs UGI	P = 0.031	P > 0.05	P = 0.025
SCT vs FG	P > 0.05	P > 0.05	P > 0.05

Notes: SCT = spiral CT, UGI = upper gastrointestinal series, FG = fiberoptic gastroscopy.

Table 3 Comparison of different techniques in erroneously interpreted lesions

	n	False positive	False negative	Bormann's classification
				Can not be classified	Erroneously classified
SCT	60	1	1	2	12
UGI	60	0	3	9	23
FG	60	0	1	0	12

Notes: Data were the number of lesions. SCT = spiral CT, UGI = upper gastrointestinal series, FG = fiberoptic gastroscopy.

Table 4 Comparison of TNM staging of gastric carcinoma between spiral CT and pathology

Pathological staging	Spiral CT staging				Total
	1	2	3	4
1	10	2	0	0	12
2	0	4	3	0	7
3	0	7	12	0	19
4	0	0	2	3	5
Total	10	13	17	3	43