Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2025 Apr;35(4):2094-2105.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-11087-7. Epub 2024 Oct 1.

CT assessed morphological features can predict higher mitotic index in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

CT assessed morphological features can predict higher mitotic index in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Xiaoxuan Jia et al. Eur Radiol. 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the correlation of the mitotic index (MI) of 1-5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) with CT-identified morphological and first-order radiomics features, incorporating subgroup analysis based on tumor size.

Methods: We enrolled 344 patients across four institutions, each pathologically diagnosed with 1-5 cm gGISTs and undergoing preoperative contrast-enhanced CT scans. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the independent CT morphological high-risk features of MI. Lesions were categorized into four subgroups based on their pathological LD: 1-2 cm (n = 69), 2-3 cm (n = 96), 3-4 cm (n = 107), and 4-5 cm (n = 72). CT morphological high-risk features of MI were evaluated in each subgroup. In addition, first-order radiomics features were extracted on CT images of the venous phase, and the association between these features and MI was investigated.

Results: Tumor size (p = 0.04, odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.96) and invasive margin (p < 0.01, odds ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.77-11.73) emerged as independent high-risk features for MI > 5 of 1-5 cm gGISTs from multivariate analysis. In the subgroup analysis, the invasive margin was correlated with MI > 5 in 3-4 cm and 4-5 cm gGISTs (p = 0.02, p = 0.03), and potentially correlated with MI > 5 in 2-3 cm gGISTs (p = 0.07). The energy was the sole first-order radiomics feature significantly correlated with gGISTs of MI > 5, displaying a strong correlation with CT-detected tumor size (Pearson's ρ = 0.85, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The invasive margin stands out as the sole independent CT morphological high-risk feature for 1-5 cm gGISTs after tumor size-based subgroup analysis, overshadowing intratumoral morphological characteristics and first-order radiomics features.

Key points: Question How can accurate preoperative risk stratification of gGISTs be achieved to support treatment decision-making? Findings Invasive margins may serve as a reliable marker for risk prediction in gGISTs up to 5 cm, rather than surface ulceration, irregular shape, necrosis, or heterogeneous enhancement. Clinical relevance For gGISTs measuring up to 5 cm, preoperative prediction of the metastatic risk could help select patients who could be treated by endoscopic resection, thereby avoiding overtreatment.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors; Risk assessment; X-ray computed (tomography).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yi Wang. Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Statistics and biometry: No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Informed consent: Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Ethical approval: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Study subjects or cohorts overlap: None of the study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: Retrospective Diagnostic study Multicenter study

Similar articles

References

    1. Feng F, Liu Z, Zhang X et al (2015) Comparison of endoscopic and open resection for small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Transl Oncol 8:504–508 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. An W, Sun PB, Gao J et al (2017) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 31:4522–4531 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim MY, Park YS, Choi KD et al (2012) Predictors of recurrence after resection of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors of 5 cm or less. J Clin Gastroenterol 46:130–137 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Joensuu H (2008) Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum Pathol 39:1411–1419 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C et al (2002) Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach. Hum Pathol 33:459–465 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types