Value of endoscopic ultrasound elastography versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors / 中国基层医药

ABSTRACT

Objective:To investigate the clinical value of endoscopic ultrasound elastography versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the risk stratification of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Methods:Clinical and imaging data were obtained from 77 patients who were confirmed to have GISTs and underwent endoscopic or surgical treatment at Wenzhou Central Hospital between May 2019 and April 2021. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography based on a five-point scoring system and hypotonic gastrointestinal contrast-enhanced computed tomography were performed for preoperative risk stratification of GISTs. The two techniques were compared in terms of the accuracy of preoperative risk stratification of GISTs. The imaging features of the two techniques were summarized.Results:According to the postoperative pathological results, 13 patients were at high risk, 13 patients were at medium risk, 35 patients were at low risk, and 16 patients were at extremely low risk. These patients were divided into two groups according to postoperative pathological results: a low-risk group (low risk + extremely low risk) and a medium- and high-risk group (high + medium risk). In the low-risk group ( n = 51), 42 patients were identified by endoscopic ultrasound elastography to have low-risk GISTs and were recommended to receive endoscopic treatment, while the rest 9 patients were identified to have medium-risk GISTs. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography findings revealed that 30 patients had low-risk GISTs and were recommended to receive endoscopic treatment, and 21 patients had medium-risk GISTs. In the medium- and high-risk group ( n = 26), 4 patients were identified by endoscopic ultrasound elastography to have low-risk GISTs, and 22 patients had medium- or high-risk GISTs. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography findings revealed that 9 patients were identified to have low-risk GISTs, and 17 patients had medium- or high-risk GISTs. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography yielded an overall diagnostic accuracy of 83.11% (64/77), while contrast-enhanced computed tomography had an overall diagnostic accuracy of 61.04% (47/77). Endoscopic ultrasound elastography outperformed contrast-enhanced computed tomography in accurate risk stratification of GISTs ( χ2 = 4.66, P < 0.05). In terms of predicting high-risk GISTs, endoscopic ultrasound elastography had a sensitivity of 84.62% and a specificity of 82.35%, both were higher than those of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (sensitivity 65.38%; specificity 58.82%), but the differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two techniques were not significant (sensitivity Fisher's exact test P = 0.590, specificity χ2 = 0.93, P > 0.05). Conclusion:Endoscopic ultrasound elastography appears to have a better overall diagnostic accuracy in the risk stratification of GISTs compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography. The combined use of these two techniques may offer a better comprehensive understanding of the perilesional structure and organ involvements and distant metastasis than a single technique, thereby providing a reliable reference for the choice of treatment for GISTs.