Cargando…

Differential diagnostic value of tumor markers and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma and gastric adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tumor markers and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in differentiating gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma (GHA) from gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). METHODS: This retrospective study included 160 patients (44 with GHA vs. 116 with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dong, Congsong, Wang, Yanling, Gu, Xiaoyu, Lv, Xiaojing, Ren, Shuai, Wang, Zhongqiu, Dai, Zhenyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10396771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538113
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1222853
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tumor markers and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in differentiating gastric hepatoid adenocarcinoma (GHA) from gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). METHODS: This retrospective study included 160 patients (44 with GHA vs. 116 with GA) who underwent preoperative CE-CT. Preoperative serum concentrations of tumor biomarkers and CT imaging features were analyzed, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), tumor location, growth pattern, size, enhancement pattern, cystic changes, and mass contrast enhancement. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate useful tumor markers and CT imaging features for differentiating GHA from GA. RESULTS: When compared to GA, GHA showed a higher serum AFP [13.27 ng/ml (5.2–340.1) vs. 2.7 ng/ml (2.2–3.98), P <0.001] and CEA levels [4.07 ng/ml (2.73–12.53) vs. 2.42 ng/ml (1.38–4.31), P <0.001]. CT imaging showed GHA with a higher frequency of tumor location in the gastric antrum (P <0.001). GHA had significantly lower attenuation values at the portal venous phase [PCA, (82.34 HU ± 8.46 vs. 91.02 HU ± 10.62, P <0.001)] and delayed phase [DCA, (72.89 HU ± 8.83 vs. 78.27 HU ± 9.51, P <0.001)] when compared with GA. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that tumor location, PCA, and serum AFP level were independent predictors of differentiation between GHA and GA. The combination of these three predictors performed well in discriminating GHA from GA, with an AUC of 0.903, a sensitivity of 86.36%, and a specificity of 81.90%. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated evaluation of tumor markers and CT features, including tumor location, PCA, and serum AFP, allowed for more accurate differentiation of GHA from GA.