| Literature DB >> 27166769 |
Hang Li1, Xiao-Li Chen2, Jun-Ru Li3, Zhen-Lin Li3, Tian-Wu Chen4, Hong Pu1, Long-Lin Yin1, Guo-Hui Xu2, Zhen-Wen Li2, Jing Reng2, Peng Zhou2, Zhu-Zhong Cheng2, Ying Cao2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the gross tumor volume of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma on multidetector computed tomography could predict the presence of regional lymph node metastasis and could determine N categories.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27166769 PMCID: PMC4825194 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(04)04
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Figure 1Transverse contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (CT) images in a 55-year-old man (a) and a 65-year-old man (b) with gastric adenocarcinoma. The tumor area (S) is depicted on the axial contrast-enhanced CT image.
. Univariate analysis of clinicopathological factors and gross tumor volume correlated with regional lymph node metastasis.
| Variable | Lymph node metastasis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (n=66) | Positive (n=136) | ||
| Age | 58.63±10.13 | 59.58±10.89 | 0.506 |
| Gender | 0.185 | ||
| Male | 43(65.1) | 98(72.1) | |
| Female | 23(34.9) | 38(27.9) | |
| Anatomical distribution | 0.062 | ||
| Upper 1/3 | 18(27.3) | 37 | |
| Middle 1/3 | 38(57.6) | 12 | |
| Lower 1/3 | 10(15.1) | 87 | |
| Histologic type | 0.004 | ||
| Differentiated | 33(50) | 96(70.6) | |
| Undifferentiated | 33(50) | 40(29.4) | |
| T category | <0.0001 | ||
| T1 | 18(27.3) | 1(0.7) | |
| T2 | 28(42.4) | 12(8.8) | |
| T3 | 6(9) | 9(6.6) | |
| T4a | 14(21.3) | 114(83.9) | |
| Gross tumor volume (cm3) | <0.0001 | ||
| <14.5 | 55(83.3) | 32(23.5) | |
| ≥14.5 | 11(16.7) | 104(76.5) | |
| Lymphatic or vascular invasion | <0.0001 | ||
| Absent | 63(95.4) | 58(42.6) | |
| Present | 3(4.6) | 78(57.4) | |
Note: The numbers in the parentheses are percentages.
*The data are the median ± standard deviation.
Gross tumor volume of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma in patients stratified by N category.
| N category | T1-T4a categories (n=202) | T4a category (n=128) |
|---|---|---|
| N0 | 5.40(2.98, 9.45) | 11.47(3.56, 19.37) |
| N1 | 15.47(4.48, 20.87) | 16.50(6.77, 24.75) |
| N2 | 26(15.20, 33.60) | 26.25(15.75, 39.60) |
| N3 | 48.75(27, 110) | 50.47(27, 112.77) |
| N0-N1 | 6.90(3.27, 15.75) | 15.20(4.50, 23.50) |
| N0-N2 | 11.01(4.40, 23.50) | 16.87(11.73, 32.12) |
| N1-N3 | 26.60(15.2, 48.56) | 30(16, 52.9) |
| N2-N3 | 32.25(19.68, 61.20) | 33(20.44, 72) |
Note: The data are presented as the median (25th percentile, 75th percentile).
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the accuracy of the gross tumor volume (GTV) in differentiating N categories in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma in the T1-T4a categories. The ROC curve shows that the GTV could help to differentiate N0 from N1-N3 (A), N0-N1 from N2-N3 (B), and N0-N2 from N3 (C) by using GTV cutoff values of 12.30 cm3, 16.65 cm3 and 24.60 cm3, respectively.
Receiver operating characteristic analysis of accuracy of gross tumor volume of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma in detecting N categories.
| Gross tumor volume cutoff | N category comparisons | AUC | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1-T4a categories (n=202) | |||||||
| 12.30(cm3) | N0 vs N1-N3 | 0.870 | 81.6 | 83.3 | 90.8 | 67 | 81.2 |
| 16.65(cm3) | N0-N1 vs N2-N3 | 0.878 | 80 | 77.9 | 77.2 | 80.2 | 78.7 |
| 24.60(cm3) | N0-N2 vs N3 | 0.869 | 76.4 | 76.5 | 60 | 89.3 | 76.2 |
| T4a category (n=128) | |||||||
| 15.79(cm3) | N0 vs N1-N3 | 0.790 | 77.2 | 78.6 | 96.7 | 30 | 77.3 |
| 17.75(cm3) | N0-N1 vs N2-N3 | 0.800 | 79.8 | 72.8 | 86.5 | 60.9 | 77.3 |
| 24.00(cm3) | N0-N2 vs N3 | 0.807 | 80 | 67 | 56.3 | 82.4 | 67.9 |
Note: AUC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, PPV = positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value.