Gastric schwannoma misdiagnosed as a GIST

Peltrini, Roberto; Greco, Paola Antonella; Nasto, Riccardo Aurelio; D’Alessandro, Alessandra; Iacobelli, Alessandro; Insabato, Luigi; Bucci, Luigi

doi:10.1080/00015458.2019.1642597

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lower Value TV for GISTs may be due to the mismatch between the relatively slow speed of neovascularization and the fast speed of tumor growth and to the quick washout of intratumoral contrast agent in the portal phases for GISTs ( 5 , 6 , 23 , 24 ). In contrast, GSs are relatively slow-growing tumors that are typically on par with those of neovascularization and exhibit a mild enhancement in the arterial phase with strengthening in the venous phase ( 4 , 17 , 25 ). These rationales could explain why the finding of Value TV was significantly higher in GSs than in GISTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a CT image analysis-based scoring system to differentiate gastric schwannomas from gastrointestinal stromal tumors

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo develop a point-based scoring system (PSS) based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) qualitative and quantitative features to differentiate gastric schwannomas (GSs) from gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).MethodsThis retrospective study included 51 consecutive GS patients and 147 GIST patients. Clinical and CT features of the tumors were collected and compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses using the stepwise forward method were used to determine the risk factors for GSs and create a PSS. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of PSS.ResultsThe CT attenuation value of tumors in venous phase images, tumor-to-spleen ratio in venous phase images, tumor location, growth pattern, and tumor surface ulceration were identified as predictors for GSs and were assigned scores based on the PSS. Within the PSS, GS prediction probability ranged from 0.60% to 100% and increased as the total risk scores increased. The AUC of PSS in differentiating GSs from GISTs was 0.915 (95% CI: 0.874–0.957) with a total cutoff score of 3.0, accuracy of 0.848, sensitivity of 0.843, and specificity of 0.850.ConclusionsThe PSS of both qualitative and quantitative CT features can provide an easy tool for radiologists to successfully differentiate GS from GIST prior to surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a CT image analysis-based scoring system to differentiate gastric schwannomas from gastrointestinal stromal tumors

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diagnosis of GS is based on immunohistochemical pathology; the tumors are positive for S-100 protein and negative for c-kit, CD34, CD117, actin, desmin, SMA, and DOG-1. Pathological features of GS include spindle cells arranged in bundles in the tumor center and the surrounding lymphocyte sleeve[ 14 ]. The lymphocyte sleeve is a characteristic manifestation of GS, and the formation of a lymphocyte mantle may be caused by lymphocyte chemotaxis due to cytokines secreted by tumor cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gastric schwannoma misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumor by ultrasonography before surgery: A case report

Li¹,

Liu²

2022

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Gastric origin tumors were diagnosed and evaluated preoperatively by gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging. Currently, transabdominal high-resolution ultrasound combined with gastrointestinal contrast agent can be used to diagnose stomach tumors effectively and without invasive procedures or radiation. However, although an appreciable number of cases of gastric schwannoma (GS) have been reported since the first description of such in 1988, the ongoing lack of a comprehensive list of ultrasonic characteristics has limited the accuracy of preoperative ultrasound diagnosis. CASE SUMMARY A 64-year-old female patient presented to our hospital with dizziness and head discomfort. During an abdominal ultrasound, a hypoechoic gastric mass was found, having clear and regular boundaries and no observable blood flow. Based on these characteristics, a gastrointestinal stromal tumor was suspected. Results from an endoscopic ultrasound biopsy and accompanying immunohistochemical analysis, coupled with abdominal CT findings indicating lymph node enlargement around the stomach, led to diagnosis of GS but did not exclude malignancy. After surgical resection of the tumor, the final diagnosis of GS without lymph node metastasis was made. No recurrence has occurred in the 6 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION A clearly defined ultrasonic characteristic profile of GS is important to improve diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

Diagnosis and treatment of gastric schwannoma

Xie

et al. 2021

Asian Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gastric schwannoma misdiagnosed as a GIST

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Development of a CT image analysis-based scoring system to differentiate gastric schwannomas from gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Development of a CT image analysis-based scoring system to differentiate gastric schwannomas from gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Gastric schwannoma misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumor by ultrasonography before surgery: A case report

Diagnosis and treatment of gastric schwannoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About