Relationship between multi-slice computed tomography features and pathological risk stratification assessment in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Table 1 Quantitative features between low-grade and high-grade group

Variables	Low-grade group	High-grade group	χ2/Z/t value	P value
	n = 101, 68.7%	n = 46, 31.3%
Age (mean ± SD, yr)	60.59 ± 10.33	62.09 ± 11.19	-0.791	0.43
Sex (n, %)
Male	47 (46.5)	26 (56.5)	1.261	0.261
Female	53 (53.5)	20 (43.5)
Tumor size (mean ± SD), cm	3.14 ± 0.94	6.63 ± 3.26	-9.918	< 0.001
Unenhanced CT, Hu	34.26 ± 3.86	33.93 ± 4.80	0.434	0.665
Absolute enhancement
AP, Hu	49.72 ± 8.63	47.15 ± 9.44	1.625	0.106
PVP, Hu	60.83 ± 11.07	59.11 ± 11.79	0.858	0.393
DP, Hu	64.68 ± 9.06	63.09 ± 9.12	0.988	0.325
Relative enhancement
AP, Hu	15.47 ± 7.57	13.22 ± 9.40	1.544	0.125
PVP, Hu	26.57 ± 10.11	25.17 ± 11.69	0.745	0.457
DP, Hu	30.43 ± 7.66	29.15 ± 9.03	0.883	0.379

CT: Computed tomography; AP: Arterial phase; DP: Delayed phase; PVP: Portal venous phase.

Table 2 Association of computed tomography features and malignant potential in patients with gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Factor	Low risk group (n = 101)	High risk group (n = 46)	χ2	P value
Location			0.548	0.76
Fundus	55 (54.5)	28 (60.9)
Body	35 (34.7)	14 (30.4)
Antrum	11 (10.9)	4 (8.7)
Tumor diameter (cm)1			64.928	< 0.001
> 10 cm	1 (1.0)	7 (15.2)
5-10 cm	2 (2.0)	21 (45.7)
≤ 5 cm	98 (97.0)	18 (39.1)
Tumor contours			28.42	< 0.001
Irregular	3 (3.0)	16 (34.8)
Regular	98 (97.0)	30 (65.2)
Ulceration			9.161	0.002
Present	25 (24.8)	23 (50.0)
Absent	76 (75.2)	23 (50.0)
Cystic degeneration or necrosis			23.3	< 0.001
Present	45 (44.6)	40 (87.0)
Absent	56 (55.4)	6 (13.0)
Calcification			0.309	0.578
Present	14 (13.9)	8 (17.4)
Absent	87 (86.1)	38 (82.6)
Growth patterns			14.634	0.001
Mixed	8 (7.9)	13 (28.3)
Endoluminal	69 (68.3)	18 (39.1)
Exophytic	24 (23.8)	15 (32.6)
Lymphadenopathy			5.627	0.018
Present	19 (18.8)	17 (37.0)
Absent	82 (81.2)	29 (63.0)
Enhancement pattern			28.192	< 0.001
Heterogeneous	51 (50.5)	44 (95.7)
Homogenous	50 (49.5)	2 (4.3)
Enhancement degree			5.188	0.075
Marked	12 (11.9)	10 (21.7)
Moderate	83 (82.2)	30 (65.2)
Mild	6 (5.9)	6 (13.0)

¹Fisher’s exact tests were applied to compare the differences.

χ² tests were applied to all other variables.

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis of significant computed tomography features for prediction of high malignant potential

CT feature	β	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value
Size	3.275	26.448 (4.854-144.099)	< 0.001
Contour	2.048	7.750 (1.253-47.955)	0.028
Growth patterns	1.556	4.740 (1.029-21.828)	0.046

CI: Confidence interval; CT: Computed tomography.