1
|
Çoban B, Bengi G, Derviş Hakim G, Mehtat Ünlü Ş, Solakoğlu Kahraman D, Barlık F, Kaya GÇ, Soytürk M. Investigation of Clinical, Laboratory, Imaging Findings and Histopathological Features of Patients wıth Gastric Neuroendocrine Cell Hyperplasia. Turk J Gastroenterol 2024; 35:92-101. [PMID: 38454240 PMCID: PMC10895882 DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2024.22681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2022] [Accepted: 11/09/2022] [Indexed: 03/09/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS Neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia is a non-neoplastic proliferation of enterochromaffin-like cells and is considered a premalignant lesion because of their potential to progress to neuroendocrine tumor. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the demographic and clinical features, laboratory, radiological and endoscopic findings, gastric biopsy histopathological features, follow-up frequency, and histopathological findings of patients diagnosed with gastric neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia as well as to investigate the factors that play a role in the development of neuroendocrine tumors on the basis of neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study has been conducted in 2 centers with 282 patients that were grouped as those with and without neuroendocrine tumor. Individuals with control endoscopy were separated as those with regression of neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia and those without regression, and the determined parameters were evaluated between the groups. RESULTS The most common histological subtype of neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia was linear+micronodular (50.4%). Neuroendocrine tumor developed in 4.3% (12/282) of the patients with neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia after a mean of 36 months. The presence of polyps as confirmed via endoscopy and dysplasia as confirmed via histopathological examination was significantly higher in favor of the group with neuroendocrine tumor (P = .01). In patients with neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia regressed and patients in whom it did not regress were examined, the rate of asymptomatic patients and increased sedimentation rate were found in favor of the group that did not regress (P = .02 and P = .02), but no difference was found in other parameters. CONCLUSION Neuroendocrine tumor development rate was found to be 4.3% in the background of neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia. Two factors predicting progression from neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia to neuroendocrine tumor can be elaborated as the presence of polypoid appearance due to neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia as confirmed via endoscopy and dysplasia as confirmed via histopathological examination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burcu Çoban
- Division of Internal Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Göksel Bengi
- Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Gözde Derviş Hakim
- Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Health Sciences University, İzmir Faculty of Medicine, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey
| | | | - Dudu Solakoğlu Kahraman
- Department of Pathology, Health Sciences University, İzmir Faculty of Medicine, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Funda Barlık
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Gamze Çapa Kaya
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Müjde Soytürk
- Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Çelik H, Odaman H, Altay C, Ünek T, Özbilgin M, Egeli T, Ağalar C, Astarcıoğlu İK, Barlık F. Manual and semi-automated computed tomography volumetry significantly overestimates the right liver lobe graft weight: a single-center study with adult living liver donors. Diagn Interv Radiol 2024; 30:3-8. [PMID: 37154817 PMCID: PMC10773183 DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.221903] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Preoperative evaluation of donor liver volume is indispensable in living donor liver transplantation to ensure sufficient residual liver and graft-to-recipient weight ratio. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of two computed tomography (CT) volumetry programs, an interactive manual and a semi-automated one, in the preoperative estimation of the right lobe graft weight. METHODS One hundred and nine right liver lobe living donors between January 2008 and January 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Two radiologists measured the liver graft volumes independently using manual and semi-automated CT volumetry, and the interaction time was recorded. Actual graft weight (AGW) measured intraoperatively served as the reference standard. The paired samples t-test was used to compare the estimated graft weight (EGW) and the AGW. Inter-user and inter-method agreements were assessed with Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS Both manual and semi-automated CT volumetry significantly overestimated the graft weight (EGW manual: 893 ± 155 mL vs. AGW manual: 787 ± 128 g, P < 0.001, EGW semi-automated: 879 ± 143 mL vs. AGW semi-automated, P < 0.001). The junior radiologist measured higher volumes than the senior radiologist with either method (P < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed mean difference and standard deviation for inter-method agreement of 7 ± 48 cc for the senior radiologist, and 34 ± 54 cc for the junior radiologist. The mean difference and standard deviation for inter-method agreement was 63 ± 59 cc in manual volumetry and 22 ± 38 cc in semi-automated volumetry. The mean interaction time was 27.3 ± 14.2 min for manual volumetry and 6.8 ± 1.4 min for semi-automated volumetry (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Both manual and semi-automated CT volumetry significantly overestimated the right liver graft weight, while semi-automated volumetry significantly reduced the interaction time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hakkı Çelik
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Hüseyin Odaman
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Canan Altay
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Tarkan Ünek
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Mücahit Özbilgin
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Tufan Egeli
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Cihan Ağalar
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, İzmir, Turkey
| | | | - Funda Barlık
- Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, İzmir, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Onur MR, Özbay Y, İdilman İ, Karaosmanoğlu AD, Uysal Ramadan S, Barlık F, Aydın S, Odaman H, Altay C, Başara Akın I, Dicle O, Appak Ö, Gülpınar B, Erden A, Kula S, Gürsöy Çoruh A, Kuru Öz D, Kul M, Uzun Ç, Karavaş E, Levent A, Artaş H, Eryeşil H, Solmaz O, Öztürk Kaygusuz T, Faraşat M, Kale AB, Düzgün F, Pekindil G, Apaydın FD, Nass Duce M, Balcı Y, Esen K, Sağır Kahraman A, Karaca L, Maraş Özdemir Z, Kahraman B, Tosun M, Nural MS, Çamlıdağ İ, Onar MA, Ballı K, Güler E, Harman M, Elmas NZ, Öztürk C, Güngör Ö, Herek D, Yağcı AB, Erol C, Şeker M, İşlek İ, Can Y, Aslan S, Karadeniz Bilgili MY, Göncüoğlu A, Keleş H, Bekin Sarıkaya PZ, Bakır B, Dağoğlu Kartal MG, Durak G, Yücel Oğuzdoğan G, Alper F, Yalçın A, Gürel S, Alan B, Gündoğdu E, Aydın N, Cansu A, Civan Kuş C, Ofluoğlu Tuncer E, Pişkin FC, Çolakoğlu Er H, Değirmenci B, Özmen MN, Kantarcı M, Karçaaltıncaba M. Evaluation of abdominal computed tomography findings in patients with COVID-19: a multicenter study. Diagn Interv Radiol 2023; 29:414-427. [PMID: 36960669 PMCID: PMC10679620 DOI: 10.4274/dir.2022.221575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the frequency of abdominal computed tomography (CT) findings in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and interrogate the relationship between abdominal CT findings and patient demographic features, clinical findings, and laboratory test results as well as the CT atherosclerosis score in the abdominal aorta. METHODS This study was designed as a multicenter retrospective study. The abdominal CT findings of 1.181 patients with positive abdominal symptoms from 26 tertiary medical centers with a positive polymerase chain-reaction test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were reviewed. The frequency of ischemic and non-ischemic CT findings as well as the association between CT findings, clinical features, and abdominal aortic calcific atherosclerosis score (AA-CAS) were recorded. RESULTS Ischemic and non-ischemic abdominal CT findings were detected in 240 (20.3%) and 328 (27.7%) patients, respectively. In 147 patients (12.4%), intra-abdominal malignancy was present. The most frequent ischemic abdominal CT findings were bowel wall thickening (n = 120; 10.2%) and perivascular infiltration (n = 40; 3.4%). As for non-ischemic findings, colitis (n = 91; 7.7%) and small bowel inflammation (n = 73; 6.2%) constituted the most frequent disease processes. The duration of hospital stay was found to be higher in patients with abdominal CT findings than in patients without any positive findings (13.8 ± 13 vs. 10.4 ± 12.8 days, P < 0.001). The frequency of abdominal CT findings was significantly higher in patients who did not survive the infection than in patients who were discharged after recovery (41.7% vs. 27.4%, P < 0.001). Increased AA-CAS was found to be associated with a higher risk of ischemic conditions in abdominal CT examinations. CONCLUSION Abdominal symptoms in patients with COVID-19 are usually associated with positive CT findings. The presence of ischemic findings on CT correlates with poor COVID-19 outcomes. A high AA-CAS is associated with abdominal ischemic findings in patients with COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehmet Ruhi Onur
- Department of Radiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Yakup Özbay
- Department of Radiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - İlkay İdilman
- Department of Radiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Selma Uysal Ramadan
- Clinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Ankara Atatürk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Funda Barlık
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Sonay Aydın
- Department of Radiology, Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan, Turkey
| | - Hüseyin Odaman
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Canan Altay
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Işıl Başara Akın
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Oğuz Dicle
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Özgür Appak
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Başak Gülpınar
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ayşe Erden
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Sezer Kula
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Diğdem Kuru Öz
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Melahat Kul
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Çağlar Uzun
- Department of Radiology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Erdal Karavaş
- Department of Radiology, Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan, Turkey
| | - Akın Levent
- Department of Radiology, Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan, Turkey
| | - Hakan Artaş
- Department of Radiology, Fırat University Faculty of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Hasan Eryeşil
- Department of Radiology, Fırat University Faculty of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Onur Solmaz
- Department of Radiology, Fırat University Faculty of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Türkkan Öztürk Kaygusuz
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Fırat University Faculty of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Faraşat
- Department of Radiology, Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Burak Kale
- Department of Radiology, Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Fatih Düzgün
- Department of Radiology, Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Gökhan Pekindil
- Department of Radiology, Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey
| | - F. Demir Apaydın
- Department of Radiology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Meltem Nass Duce
- Department of Radiology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Yüksel Balcı
- Department of Radiology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Kaan Esen
- Department of Radiology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
| | | | - Leyla Karaca
- Department of Radiology, İnönü University Faculty of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey
| | | | - Bayram Kahraman
- Clinic of Radiology, Specialist Doctor Bayram Kahraman Radiology Clinic, Malatya, Turkey
| | - Mesude Tosun
- Department of Radiology, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Selim Nural
- Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey
| | - İlkay Çamlıdağ
- Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Arda Onar
- Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Kaan Ballı
- Department of Radiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Ezgi Güler
- Department of Radiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Harman
- Department of Radiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Nevra Zehra Elmas
- Department of Radiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Cansu Öztürk
- Clinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Ankara Atatürk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Özlem Güngör
- Clinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Ankara Atatürk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Duygu Herek
- Department of Radiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Baki Yağcı
- Department of Radiology, Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Cengiz Erol
- Department of Radiology, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Şeker
- Department of Radiology, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - İrem İşlek
- Department of Radiology, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Yusuf Can
- Department of Radiology, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Serdar Aslan
- Department of Radiology, Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Giresun, Turkey
| | | | - Alper Göncüoğlu
- Department of Radiology, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale, Turkey
| | - Hatice Keleş
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale, Turkey
| | | | - Barış Bakır
- Department of Radiology, İstanbul University, İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Görkem Durak
- Department of Radiology, İstanbul University, İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Gülşen Yücel Oğuzdoğan
- Clinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Fatih Alper
- Department of Radiology, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Yalçın
- Department of Radiology, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey
| | - Safiye Gürel
- Department of Radiology, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Medicine, Bolu, Turkey
| | - Bircan Alan
- Department of Radiology, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Medicine, Bolu, Turkey
| | - Elif Gündoğdu
- Department of Radiology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Eskişehir, Turkey
| | - Nevin Aydın
- Department of Radiology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Eskişehir, Turkey
| | - Ayşegül Cansu
- Department of Radiology, Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey
| | - Ceyda Civan Kuş
- Clinic of Radiology, Marmara University Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Elif Ofluoğlu Tuncer
- Clinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Sultan 2. Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Ferhat Can Pişkin
- Department of Radiology, Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Hale Çolakoğlu Er
- Department of Radiology, Ufuk University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Mustafa Nasuh Özmen
- Department of Radiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mecit Kantarcı
- Department of Radiology, Binali Yıldırım University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Çelik H, Barlık F, Sökmen S, Terzi C, Canda AE, Sağol Ö, Sarıoğlu S, Ünlü M, Bilkay Görken İ, Arıcan Alıcıkuş Z, Öztop İ. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative local staging of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Diagn Interv Radiol 2023; 29:219-227. [PMID: 36971272 PMCID: PMC10679710 DOI: 10.4274/dir.2022.221333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This paper aims to investigate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the pathologic stage of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and the role of MRI in selecting patients with a pathologic complete response (ypCR). METHODS Restaging MRI (yMRI) examinations of 136 patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists. All examinations were performed on a 1.5 Tesla MRI machine with a pelvic phased-array coil. T2-weighted turbo spin-echo images and diffusion-weighted imaging were obtained. Histopathologic reports of the surgical specimens were the reference standard. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of yMRI in predicting the pathologic T-stage (ypT), N-stage, and ypCR were calculated. The inter-observer agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS The yMRI results showed 67% accuracy, 59% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 81% PPV, and 56% NPV in identifying ypT (ypT0-2 versus ypT3-4). In predicting the nodal status, the yMRI results revealed 63% accuracy, 60% sensitivity, 65% specificity, 47% PPV, and 75% NPV. In predicting ypCR, the yMRI results showed 84% accuracy, 20% sensitivity, 92% specificity, 23% PPV, and 90% NPV. The kappa statistics revealed substantial agreement between the two radiologists. CONCLUSION Utilization of yMRI showed high specificity and PPV in predicting the tumor stage and high NPV in predicting the nodal stage; in addition, yMRI revealed moderate accuracy in the T and N classifications, mainly due to underestimating the tumor stage and overestimating the nodal status. Finally, yMRI revealed high specificity and NPV but low sensitivity in predicting the complete response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hakkı Çelik
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Funda Barlık
- Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Selman Sökmen
- Department of General Surgery, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Cem Terzi
- Department of General Surgery, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Aras Emre Canda
- Department of General Surgery, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Özgül Sağol
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Sülen Sarıoğlu
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Mehtat Ünlü
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - İlknur Bilkay Görken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Zümre Arıcan Alıcıkuş
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - İlhan Öztop
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|