PURPOSE: To describe the computer-tomographic (CT) aspects of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in correlation to their histology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of all patients at our hospital with a histologic diagnosis of GIST between January 2002 and June 2006, and investigated before surgery by CT, were reviewed. Two radiologists with knowledge of the diagnosis reviewed the CT findings. RESULTS: Amongst 15 cases of GISTs, 9 cases involved the stomach and 4 cases the small intestine. Location of the primary tumor could not be determined for 2 of 15 tumors, because of the presence of extensive peritoneal metastases. Most primary tumors were predominantly extraluminal (13 cases) while two were clearly endoluminal. The mean diameter of the primary tumor was 8 cm. The tumor margin was well defined in 12 patients and irregular in 3 cases. Central fluid attenuation was present in 11 tumors, while central gas was seen in two cases. Metastases were seen in 2 cases at presentation and in another 2 patients during follow-up. Spread was exclusive to the liver or peritoneum. Visceral obstruction was absent even in extensive peritoneal metastatic disease. Ascites was an unusual finding. CONCLUSIONS: CT plays an important role not only in the detection and the localization but also in the evaluation of the extension and follow-up of theses tumors. Using only CT aspects, we can only suspect the diagnosis to GISTs. Often other soft-tissue tumors with gastrointestinal involvement can mimic GISTs. In all cases histological diagnosis is essential.
PURPOSE: To describe the computer-tomographic (CT) aspects of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in correlation to their histology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of all patients at our hospital with a histologic diagnosis of GIST between January 2002 and June 2006, and investigated before surgery by CT, were reviewed. Two radiologists with knowledge of the diagnosis reviewed the CT findings. RESULTS: Amongst 15 cases of GISTs, 9 cases involved the stomach and 4 cases the small intestine. Location of the primary tumor could not be determined for 2 of 15 tumors, because of the presence of extensive peritoneal metastases. Most primary tumors were predominantly extraluminal (13 cases) while two were clearly endoluminal. The mean diameter of the primary tumor was 8 cm. The tumor margin was well defined in 12 patients and irregular in 3 cases. Central fluid attenuation was present in 11 tumors, while central gas was seen in two cases. Metastases were seen in 2 cases at presentation and in another 2 patients during follow-up. Spread was exclusive to the liver or peritoneum. Visceral obstruction was absent even in extensive peritoneal metastatic disease. Ascites was an unusual finding. CONCLUSIONS: CT plays an important role not only in the detection and the localization but also in the evaluation of the extension and follow-up of theses tumors. Using only CT aspects, we can only suspect the diagnosis to GISTs. Often other soft-tissue tumors with gastrointestinal involvement can mimic GISTs. In all cases histological diagnosis is essential.