AIM: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease (RCD) and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma (EATL). METHODS: Coeliac disease (CD) patients were divided into two groups. Group I: uncomplicated CD (n = 14) and RCD type I (n = 10). Group II: RCD type II (n = 15) and EATL (n = 7). RESULTS: Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group I vs 5 in group II (P = 0.06). Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group II vs no patients in group I (P = 0.01). Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group I vs 11 in group II (P = 0.02). Eleven patients (50%) in group II had a splenic volume < 122 cm3 vs 4 in group I (14%), 10 patients in group I had a splenic volume > 196 cm3 (66.7%) vs 5 in group II (33.3%) P = 0.028. CONCLUSION: CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and (Pre) EATL. RCD II and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD I.
AIM: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease (RCD) and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma (EATL). METHODS:Coeliac disease (CD) patients were divided into two groups. Group I: uncomplicated CD (n = 14) and RCD type I (n = 10). Group II: RCD type II (n = 15) and EATL (n = 7). RESULTS: Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group I vs 5 in group II (P = 0.06). Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group II vs no patients in group I (P = 0.01). Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group I vs 11 in group II (P = 0.02). Eleven patients (50%) in group II had a splenic volume < 122 cm3 vs 4 in group I (14%), 10 patients in group I had a splenic volume > 196 cm3 (66.7%) vs 5 in group II (33.3%) P = 0.028. CONCLUSION: CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and (Pre) EATL. RCD II and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD I.
Authors: M S Goerres; J W R Meijer; P J Wahab; J A M Kerckhaert; P J T A Groenen; J H J M Van Krieken; C J J Mulder Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Greetje J Tack; Wieke H M Verbeek; Abdul Al-Toma; Dirk J Kuik; Marco W J Schreurs; Otto Visser; Chris J J Mulder Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Tom van Gils; Petula Nijeboer; Jan Hein Tm van Waesberghe; Veerle Mh Coupé; Kiki Janssen; Jessy A Zegers; Shaikh A Nurmohamed; Georg Kraal; Sabine Ci Jiskoot; Gerd Bouma; Chris Jj Mulder Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Tom van Gils; Petula Nijeboer; Roy L van Wanrooij; Gerd Bouma; Chris J J Mulder Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Tamas A Gonda; Sharif-Uz-Zaman Khan; Jian Cheng; Suzanne K Lewis; Moshe Rubin; Peter H R Green Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Madhu M Ouseph; Malorie Simons; Diana O Treaba; Evgeny Yakirevich; Peter H Green; Govind Bhagat; Steven F Moss; Shamlal Mangray Journal: ACG Case Rep J Date: 2016-10-12