Skip to main content

Table 2 CT features comparison among HPs and GISTs: univariate analysis

From: A CT-based nomogram established for differentiating gastrointestinal heterotopic pancreas from gastrointestinal stromal tumor: compared with a machine-learning model

CT findings

HPs (n = 48)

GISTs (n = 100)

P value*

Location

  

< 0.001

 The upper part of stomach

5(10.4%)

49(49.0%)

 

 The middle part of stomach

6(12.5%)

15(15.0%)

 

 The lower part of stomach

25(52.1%)

17(17.0%)

 

 Duodenum

7(14.6%)

10(10.0%)

 

 Jejunum or ileum

5(10.4%)

9(9.0%)

 

Multiple lesions

  

0.622

 No

45(93.7%)

97(97.0%)

 

 Yes

3(6.3%)

3(3.0%)

 

Contour

  

0.200

 Round

7(14.6%)

16(16.0%)

 

 Ovoid

15(31.3%)

49(49.0%)

 

 Hill-like

9(18.8%)

10(10.0%)

 

 Flat

7(14.6%)

8(8.0%)

 

 Irregular

10(20.8%)

17(17.0%)

 

Imaging type

  

0.096

 Solid-dominant

35(72.9%)

79(79.0%)

 

 Cystic-dominant

5(10.4%)

2(2.0%)

 

 Mixed

8(16.7%)

19(19.0%)

 

Microlobulated

  

0.193

 No

19(39.6%)

51(51.0%)

 

 Yes

29(60.4%)

49(49.0%)

 

Calcification

  

0.603

 No

46(95.8%)

92(92.0%)

 

 Yes

2(4.2%)

8(8.0%)

 

Growth pattern

  

0.462

 Intraluminal

21(43.8%)

44(44.0%)

 

 Extraluminal

6(12.5%)

20(20.0%)

 

 Mixed

21(43.8%)

36(36.0%)

 

Low intralesional attenuation

  

0.791

 No

37(77.1%)

79(79.0%)

 

 Yes

11(22.9%)

21(21.0%)

 

Border

  

< 0.001

 Well-defined

25(52.1%)

84(84.0%)

 

 Ill-defined

23(47.9%)

16(16.0%)

 

Peritumoral hypodensity line

  

0.002

 No

40(83.3%)

58(58.0%)

 

 Yes

8(16.7%)

42(42.0%)

 

Duct-like structure

  

0.002

 No

41(85.4%)

99(99.0%)

 

 Yes

7(14.6%)

1(1.0%)

 

Surface ulceration

  

0.097

 No

45(93.8%)

84(84.0%)

 

 Yes

3(6.3%)

16(16.0%)

 

EVFDM

  

0.588

 No

29(60.4%)

65(65.0%)

 

 Yes

19(39.6%)

35(35.0%)

 

Hyperenhancement of the overlying mucosa

  

0.481

 No

37(77.1%)

82(82.0%)

 

 Yes

11(22.9%)

18(18.0%)

 

Peak enhancement phase

  

0.256

 Arterial phase

9(18.8%)

13(13.0%)

 

 Venous phase

20(41.7%)

56(56.0%)

 

 Both

19(39.6%)

31(31.0%)

 

Enhancement grade

  

0.004

 Mild

7(14.6%)

8(8.0%)

 

 Moderate

8(16.7%)

44(44.0%)

 

 Strong

33(68.8%)

48(48.0%)

 

Enhancement pattern

  

0.008

 Heterogeneous

13(27.1%)

50(50.0%)

 

 Homogeneous

35(72.9%)

50(50.0%)

 

LD

19.71 ± 6.30

21.62 ± 6.00

0.972

SD

13.69 ± 4.59

16.65 ± 4.87

0.406

LD/SD ratio

1.50(0.52)

1.32(0.28)

0.005

HU plain

44.04(13.94)

40.93(8.10)

0.255

HU arterial

86.81(37.48)

67.54(30.43)

0.029

HU venous

93.80(26.26)

81.86(29.65)

0.052

DEAP

43.54(34.18)

26.93(32.04)

0.030

DEVP

50.35(26.30)

38.72(26.05)

0.116

Enhancement ratio

1.17(0.66)

0.99(0.73)

0.158

HU lesion/pancreas, P

0.88(0.31)

0.84(0.21)

0.399

HU lesion/pancreas, A

0.88(0.31)

0.67(0.20)

0.006

HU lesion/pancreas, V

1.03(0.23)

0.90(0.31)

0.077

  1. * P values ≤ 0.05 in bold and italics indicated a statistically significant difference between groups
  2. HU plain/arterial/venous = the CT attenuation value of plain/arterial/portal venous phase; DEAP = HU arterial − HU plain; DEVP = HU venous − HU plain; Enhancement ratio= (HU venous − HU plain)/HU plain of lesion; HU lesion/pancreas, P/A/V = the CT values ratio of lesion to pancreas in plain, arterial, venous phase