Application of CD34 expression combined with three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography scanning in preoperative staging of gastric cancer

Table 1 General data, n (%)

		n = 106
Age (yr)		57.5 ± 7.8
Gender
	Male	81 (76.42)
	Female	25 (23.58)
Tumor length (cm)		5.02 ± 1.85
Pathological T staging
	T1	25 (23.58)
	T2	28 (26.42)
	T3	34 (32.08)
	T4	19 (17.92)
Pathological N staging
	N0	37 (34.91)
	N1	27 (25.47)
	N2	20 (18.87)
	N3	22 (20.75)
Tissue typing
	Adenocarcinoma	83 (78.30)
	Signet-ring cell carcinoma	17 (16.04)
	Neuroendocrine carcinoma	6 (5.66)
Degree of differentiation
	High differentiation	32 (30.19)
	Moderate differentiation	55 (51.89)
	Low differentiation	19 (17.92)

Table 2 Diagnostic results of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography in T staging and the expression of CD34 in different T stages, n (%)

Pathological T staging	Three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT in T staging					Expression of CD34-marked MVD
	T1	T2	T3	T4	Accuracy
T1 (n = 25)	17	4	4	0	68.00	47.44 ± 10.22
T2 (n = 28)	4	21	3	0	75.00	63.41 ± 7.16
T3 (n = 34)	0	4	27	3	79.41	86.21 ± 8.36
T4 (n = 19)	0	2	3	14	73.68	103.71 ± 10.92

CT: Computed tomography; MVD: Microvessel density.

Table 3 Diagnostic results of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography in N staging and the expression of CD34 in different N stages, n (%)

Pathological N staging	N staging of three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT					Expression of CD34-marked MVD
	N0	N1	N2	N3	Accuracy
N0 (n = 37)	28	6	3	0	75.68	52.43 ± 12.77
N1 (n = 27)	3	20	4	0	74.07	71.89 ± 10.13
N2 (n = 20)	0	1	17	2	85.00	86.83 ± 9.74
N3 (n = 22)	0	2	3	17	77.27	102.07 ± 11.27

CT: Computed tomography; MVD: Microvessel density.

Table 4 Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography and CD34 in T staging

Pathological T staging	Three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT	CD34	Joint diagnosis
AUC	0.921	0.779	0.940
95%CI	0.870-0.972	0.690-0.869	0.897-0.984
Specificity (%)	86.79	64.15	55.6
Sensitivity (%)	88.68	88.68	98.72

CT: Computed tomography; AUC: Area under the curve; CI: Confidence interval.

Table 5 Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography and CD34 in N staging

Pathological N staging	Three-phase dynamic contrast-enhanced CT	CD34	Joint diagnosis
AUC	0.952	0.839	0.989
95%CI	0.915-0.989	0.761-0.917	0.975-0.999
Specificity (%)	89.06	84.38	75.15
Sensitivity (%)	92.86	78.57	98.47

CT: Computed tomography; AUC: Area under the curve; CI: Confidence interval.

Table 6 Univariate analysis

		Metastatic group (n = 69)	Non-metastatic group (n = 37)	χ2/t	P value
Age (yr)		59.3 ± 7.6	54.2 ± 7.2	3.353	0.001
Gender				0.687	0.407
	Male	51 (73.91)	30 (81.08)
	Female	18 (26.09)	7 (18.92)
Tumor length (cm)		3.73 ± 1.25	5.72 ± 1.75	6.124	< 0.001
Pathological T staging				21.296	< 0.001
	T1	7 (10.14)	18 (48.65)
	T2	19 (27.54)	9 (24.32)
	T3	28 (40.58)	6 (16.22)
	T4	15 (21.74)	4 (10.81)
Tissue typing				6.226	0.046
	Adenocarcinoma	49 (71.01)	34 (91.89)
	Signet-ring cell carcinoma	15 (21.74)	2 (5.41)
	Neuroendocrine carcinoma	5 (7.25)	1 (2.70)
Degree of differentiation				8.117	0.017
	High differentiation (n = 32)	15 (21.74)	17 (45.95)
	Moderate differentiation (n = 55)	38 (55.07)	17 (45.95)
	Low differentiation (n = 19)	16 (23.19)	3 (8.11)
Expression of CD34-labelled MVD		84.57 ± 17.83	47.81 ± 14.93	10.686	< 0.001

MVD: Microvessel density.

Table 7 Multivariate analysis

	B	S.E.	Wals	Sig.	Exp(B)	95%CI for EXP (B)
						Lower limit	Upper limit
Age (yr)	-0.071	0.097	0.526	0.468	0.932	0.770	1.128
Long diameter of tumor	1.367	0.527	6.728	0.009	3.923	1.397	11.019
T staging	2.544	0.714	12.697	0.001	12.73	3.141	51.586
Tissue typing	1.198	1.119	1.146	0.284	3.314	0.369	29.724
Degree of differentiation	2.417	0.921	6.882	0.009	11.209	1.842	68.194
Expression of CD34-labelled MVD	0.160	0.051	9.658	0.002	1.174	1.061	1.298

CI: Confidence interval; MVD: Microvessel density.