Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39276189›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Imaging findings of gastric glomus tumors.

Kumaresan Sandrasegaran, Amar Shah, Cole Thompson, Longwen Chen, Alvin Silva

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kumaresan SandrasegaranMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. sandrasegaran.kumaresan@mayo.edu.
Amar ShahMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Cole ThompsonMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Longwen Chen
Alvin SilvaMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sparse literature describes the imaging findings of gastric glomus tumors (GGT), focusing on benign tumors. We are not aware of prior radiology reports on malignant GGT. The aim of the study was to determine whether it is possible to differentiate between benign and malignant GGT on CT or MR. Institutional radiology and pathology databases were queried for the diagnosis of GGT between January 2010 to December 2023. Of 22 identified subjects, five were excluded due to non-availability of preoperative CT or MR images and three due to lack of pathological confirmation in our institution. The study cohort comprised of 14 patients (males = 6) with median age of 65 years (range 31 to 79 years). Two abdominal radiologists in consensus reviewed all relevant CT and MR images. There were 10 benign and 4 malignant GGT. Benign tumors were smaller than malignant GGT (median size of 2.0 cm vs. 5.3 cm, p = 0.03), more likely to exhibit homogeneous hyperenhancement (9/10 vs. 0/4, p < 0.01), and demonstrated intramural rather than exophytic growth. There was no substantial difference in T2 signal or diffusion restriction between benign and malignant GGT. On follow up, benign GGT were essentially stable in size, while malignant GGT grew. A biopsy proven GGT larger than 5 cm or showing necrosis is likely to be malignant. This is important since preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration may be indeterminate for malignancy.

Indexed as

Glomus TumorMagnetic Resonance ImagingStomach NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.