# The Clinical Value of Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Upper Digestive Tract Diseases

Authors: Huali Wang; Feng Cao; Jiaqi Yang; Yongjuan Wu; Lin Wang
Journal: Journal of Healthcare Engineering
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Imaging methods for gastrointestinal diseases were based on X-ray imaging until the 1970s, but the development of fiberoptic endoscopy in the 1980s has replaced X-ray imaging. Endoscopy can directly observe the location, size, scope, and color of lesions and obtain pathological results through biopsy, while ligation and other treatments can be performed on polyps and other lesions. Studies have shown that multilayer spiral computed tomography (CT) examination after standardized gastrointestinal preparation and full use of the advantages of various 3D postprocessing reconstruction techniques are of great clinical value in the detection of gastrointestinal diseases, determination of the nature of lesions, localization of lesions, and staging of gastrointestinal malignancies and can make up for the shortcomings of fiberoptic endoscopy, and various 3D postprocessing reconstruction modes have their own advantages and disadvantages. Among them, conventional CT cross-sectional images are the basic images for the diagnosis of various gastric testicular lesions. Axial images, especially thin-layer axial images, can detect the absolute majority of lesions, but there are limitations in observing the anatomical position of lesions, invasion of surrounding tissues, lymph node metastasis, vascularity, and determination of the stage of malignant tumors.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common clinical condition, most of which can be identified by gastroscopy and colonoscopy [1]. The American Gastroenterological Association defines obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) as persistent or recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding, in which no lesion can be detected by conventional gastroscopy or fiberoptic colonoscopy [2]. Small bowel-derived bleeding accounts for about 3–5% of all GI bleeding and is usually caused by small bowel disease, including vascular disease, inflammation, and tumors. Previously, the diagnosis of OGIB relied mainly on barium examination of the small intestine, but its specificity and overall diagnostic rate were low [3]. In recent years, new techniques such as multislice helical computed tomography (MSCT) and CE have been developed, which have significantly improved the diagnostic and cure rates of OGIB. Because of the convenience and noninvasiveness and the similar value of MSCTEc and MSCTEg in terms of small bowel filling effect and diagnosis of disease reported in the literature, the oral method MSCTE is now mostly used in the diagnosis of OGIB. Meanwhile, MSCTE is the method of choice for inactive OGIB because MSCT small bowel imaging can show intestinal wall and extraintestinal lesions [4]. In addition, MSCTE has the disadvantages of radiation damage and relatively complicated preparation before the examination [5]. MSCTA is a diagnostic method of active GI bleeding based on the detection of extravasation of intravenous contrast into the intestinal lumen by contrasting plain and enhanced images and is especially valuable for the diagnosis of lower GI bleeding, and the literature reports that CT angiography has a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 100% for showing colonic vascular abnormalities [6–10]. CE can directly visualize the mucosa of the bleeding small intestine, so OGIB is the main clinical indication for CE.The previous authors summarized the data of 1405 patients from 12 foreign studies with larger samples, and the positive rate of OGIB diagnosis by capsule endoscopy was 62% [11]. In the previous analysis of 61 patients with OGIB, the diagnostic rate of CE was 67.2% and the detection rate was 88.52%, which is generally consistent with foreign reports (63%) [12]. The main advantage of DBE is that it not only provides a definitive diagnosis of CE or patients with suspicious imaging but also allows for biopsy and treatment. At bleeding rates greater than 0.5 ml/min, digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the most likely test to identify the site of bleeding and allow for embolization. Nuclear imaging is currently considered the most sensitive test and has been reported in the literature to detect active bleeding at a rate of 0.1 ml/min; but on an individual basis, it can only provide a diagnosis of the presence or absence of bleeding and its approximate location, but not the cause [13]. In the past, routine CT examinations were rarely used directly for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions themselves, and its diagnostic value for some early lesions (such as small polyps, small ulcers, small tumors, and inflammatory lesions) was very limited and easily missed. The main value of CT examination of the gastrointestinal tract is that it can directly display the thickened wall of the gastrointestinal tract, determine whether the lesion invades adjacent structures, and observe the changes of other tissues and organs in the abdominal cavity and the presence of enlarged lymph nodes and so on. Therefore, it is often used for staging and postoperative follow-up of gastrointestinal tumors. In recent years, with the increasing popularity of multilayer spiral CT scanners and the rapid development of related postprocessing software technology, the diagnostic value of CT examination for gastrointestinal diseases has gained attention [14]. With the use of volumetric CT scan mode, the original data can be reconstructed, and the morphology of the gastrointestinal tract and its relationship with adjacent tissues and organs can be visualized in three dimensions, including multiplanar reconstruction, surface reconstruction, maximum density projection, and volumetric reconstruction [15]. In addition, some new CT examination techniques, such as CT virtual endoscopy (CTVE), gas casting technology, simulated gastrointestinal tract lumen, CT angiography (CTA), CT and perfusion imaging (CTP) [16], are also widely used in clinical practice. CTVE is a computer software function that processes the images obtained from spiral CT volume scanning to simulate a three-dimensional image of the inner surface of the cavity, which can simulate the view of an endoscope to observe the interior of the cavity. It has the advantages of short time, noninvasive, and good tolerance, and it can also use the data for multiple, multiplanar reconstruction to reduce the leakage caused by human factors [17]. Although it started late, as an emerging technique for endoluminal imaging, it is particularly useful for some patients who are unable or unwilling to do invasive endoscopy [18].The sensitivity and specificity of air-filled CTVE for bulging lesions in the stomach above 5 mm have been reported to be 100%. The sensitivity and specificity of CTVE in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer were 78.17%∼84.10% and 83.18%∼91.12%, respectively. Qualitative diagnosis is sometimes difficult; image quality is easily affected by various factors and so on. The gas casting technique uses gas as a contrast agent, and after volume scanning, the CT value of the gas portion is completely opaque (transparency is 0), a special transparent reconstruction technique (Raysum) is used to display the inflated intestine, and the image is similar to double-contrast imaging of the gastrointestinal tract, as shown in Figure1. The advantage is that it is possible to observe not only the inside of the cavernous organ and the luminal wall but also the outside of the lumen and to show the general anatomy [19]. The disadvantages are the need to select the proper threshold, complete loss of information outside the threshold, unfavorable display of lesion details, and so on. Simulation of the gastrointestinal lumen is based on a predetermined threshold value, and the structures within the threshold value are formed into a simulated three-dimensional reconstruction image, whose image resembles a barium-filled image [20]. The advantage is that the image is three-dimensional and intuitive, which can show the shape and contour of the organ, and the anatomical relationship is clear, which is conducive to the localization of the lesion [21]. The disadvantages are that only one threshold can be selected, and changes in the threshold value can cause false positives or false negatives, cannot show the density of the actual tissue, and cannot observe the intricacy structures.Figure 1
The role of multilayer spiral CT reconstruction in gastrointestinal imaging techniques.64-layer spiral CT has the characteristics of wide body, thin layer, and all homogeneity, which can display blood vessels and lesions rapidly, widely, and in multiple directions. In a previous study, the authors used 370 (370 mg I/ml) intravenous iodine contrast for CTE imaging and achieved satisfactory results. Inspired by the literature and application experience, this study proposes to combine three noninvasive techniques for OGIB diagnosis and to compare the value of MSCT (CTA + CTE) and CE for the diagnosis of OGIB with specific hypotonic filling techniques. In this paper, we used endoscopy to directly observe the location, size, extent, and color of lesions and obtained pathological results by biopsy sampling, while treatments such as ligation could be performed for lesions such as polyps. The results showed that multilayer spiral CT examination after standardized gastrointestinal preparation and full use of the advantages of various 3D postprocessing reconstruction techniques are of great clinical value in the detection of gastrointestinal diseases, determination of the nature of lesions, localization of lesions, and staging of gastrointestinal malignancies and can make up for the shortcomings of fiberoptic endoscopy, and various 3D postprocessing reconstruction modes have their own advantages and disadvantages. Among them, conventional CT cross-sectional images are the basic images for diagnosing various gastrointestinal lesions. Axial images, especially thin-layer axial images, can detect the absolute majority of lesions, but there are limitations in observing the anatomical location of lesions, invasion of surrounding tissues, lymph node metastasis, vascularity, and determining the stage of malignant tumors.


## 2. Data and Methods

### 2.1. Research Subjects

The imaging data of a total of 60 patients (35 males and 25 females, aged 35–68 years, with a mean age of 45.0 ± 12.7 years) who underwent MSCTE + MSCTA (superimposed examination) in People’s Hospital from November 2011 to January 2020 with good filling and with no lesions found in the digestive system after clinical diagnosis and imaging diagnosis, malignant tumors in other parts of the body, autoimmune diseases, liver cirrhosis, cardiac failure, psychiatric diseases, and iodine contrast allergy were obtained. A score of 4 or more is considered satisfactory; filling diameter of intestine greater than 1.5 cm accounted for more than 80% of the small intestine, and oral contrast reached the cecum (Table1).Table 1
The general information of selected patients.
GroupAverage age (years)Gender (male/female)Course of disease (month)Injury partLeftRightControl45.0 ± 12.735/252–131822Observation45.2 ± 12.535/252–131822


### 2.2. Research Methods

In this study, MSCTA images showed a total of 9∼13 jejuno- and ileoenteric arteries emanating from the superior mesenteric artery. The results showed that the jejunal artery showed 3 to 8 branches, of which 3 to 5 branches accounted for 81.67% (49/60); the ileal artery showed 3 to 7 branches, of which 3 to 4 branches accounted for 85.0% (51/60); and the ileocolic artery and mesocolic artery showed 1 branch each. The mean number of branches emanating from the superior mesenteric artery was 10.20 ± 2.12 for the jejunum and ileum arteries together, including 4.13 ± 1.92 for the jejunum artery and 3.75 ± 1.34 for the ileum artery.Exclusion criteria include contraindications for both MSCT (MSCTE + MSCTA) and CE: contraindications for MSCT include iodine allergy, severe cardiac and renal insufficiency, and hyperthyroidism; contraindications for CE include pacemaker implantation, luminal stenosis, diverticulum, obstruction, and severe swallowing dysfunction. In total, 6 patients with contraindications for both MSCT and CE examination were excluded: 1 case with dementia, unable to cooperate with CTE filling and CE examination; 1 case with pacemaker placement and cardiac insufficiency, where CE examination and the receiving device may have an effect on the pacemaker and the use of intravenous contrast with cardiac insufficiency is contraindicated; 2 cases with severe dysphagia, elderly patients. One patient with severe allergy was contraindicated for CT enhancement. Considering that the patient might be allergic to the polymer material of the capsule, which might cause edema of the intestinal wall and result in retention of the capsule, CE was not considered; one patient with hyperthyroidism and significant diarrhea could not undergo enhancement examination, and CE examination could not be performed due to electrolyte disturbance caused by diarrhea.


### 2.3. Statistical Analysis

The study was designed to enroll 130 consecutive patients with OGIB who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, but in clinical practice, more patients chose one diagnostic method, MSCT or CE, than both, and with this in mind, the patients were randomly assigned by SPSS statistical software according to the aforementioned serial number (130 cases): 60 cases of MSCT alone in group A (MSCTA + MSCTE), 60 cases of CE alone in group B, and 30 cases of both MSCT and CE in group C. We used the Rv.Uniform command in SPSS software to apply the random number table method as follows:(1)
Using Rv.Uniform, 130 random numbers are output and these random numbers are assigned to each case, in order to divide these random numbers by 3. Patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 0 are included in group A; patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 1 are included in group B; patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 2 are included in group C. As a result, 49, 41, and 40 patients are enrolled in groups A, B, and C, respectively, and the software specifically returns the results.(2)
To meet the projected grouping goals, 1 patient in group C needs to be realigned to group A; 9 patients in group C need to be realigned to group B. Therefore, each group of patients will need to be renumbered.(3)
Using Rv.Uniform, output 1 random number, and the output is 26. We divide 26 by 40, and the remainder is 26, so the 26th patient in group C, renumbered, is included in group A.(4)
We use Rv.Uniform to output 9 random numbers, which are 32, 18, 42, 41, 34, 89, 67, 14, and 23, and divide these 9 random numbers by 40, and the remaining numbers are 32, 18, 2, 1, 34, 9, 27, 14, and 23. Therefore, the 32nd, 18th, 2nd, 1st, 34th, 9th, 27th, 14th, and 23rd patients renumbered in group C are included in group B. 14 and 23 patients in group C were included in group B.


## 2.1. Research Subjects

The imaging data of a total of 60 patients (35 males and 25 females, aged 35–68 years, with a mean age of 45.0 ± 12.7 years) who underwent MSCTE + MSCTA (superimposed examination) in People’s Hospital from November 2011 to January 2020 with good filling and with no lesions found in the digestive system after clinical diagnosis and imaging diagnosis, malignant tumors in other parts of the body, autoimmune diseases, liver cirrhosis, cardiac failure, psychiatric diseases, and iodine contrast allergy were obtained. A score of 4 or more is considered satisfactory; filling diameter of intestine greater than 1.5 cm accounted for more than 80% of the small intestine, and oral contrast reached the cecum (Table1).Table 1
The general information of selected patients.
GroupAverage age (years)Gender (male/female)Course of disease (month)Injury partLeftRightControl45.0 ± 12.735/252–131822Observation45.2 ± 12.535/252–131822


## 2.2. Research Methods

In this study, MSCTA images showed a total of 9∼13 jejuno- and ileoenteric arteries emanating from the superior mesenteric artery. The results showed that the jejunal artery showed 3 to 8 branches, of which 3 to 5 branches accounted for 81.67% (49/60); the ileal artery showed 3 to 7 branches, of which 3 to 4 branches accounted for 85.0% (51/60); and the ileocolic artery and mesocolic artery showed 1 branch each. The mean number of branches emanating from the superior mesenteric artery was 10.20 ± 2.12 for the jejunum and ileum arteries together, including 4.13 ± 1.92 for the jejunum artery and 3.75 ± 1.34 for the ileum artery.Exclusion criteria include contraindications for both MSCT (MSCTE + MSCTA) and CE: contraindications for MSCT include iodine allergy, severe cardiac and renal insufficiency, and hyperthyroidism; contraindications for CE include pacemaker implantation, luminal stenosis, diverticulum, obstruction, and severe swallowing dysfunction. In total, 6 patients with contraindications for both MSCT and CE examination were excluded: 1 case with dementia, unable to cooperate with CTE filling and CE examination; 1 case with pacemaker placement and cardiac insufficiency, where CE examination and the receiving device may have an effect on the pacemaker and the use of intravenous contrast with cardiac insufficiency is contraindicated; 2 cases with severe dysphagia, elderly patients. One patient with severe allergy was contraindicated for CT enhancement. Considering that the patient might be allergic to the polymer material of the capsule, which might cause edema of the intestinal wall and result in retention of the capsule, CE was not considered; one patient with hyperthyroidism and significant diarrhea could not undergo enhancement examination, and CE examination could not be performed due to electrolyte disturbance caused by diarrhea.


## 2.3. Statistical Analysis

The study was designed to enroll 130 consecutive patients with OGIB who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, but in clinical practice, more patients chose one diagnostic method, MSCT or CE, than both, and with this in mind, the patients were randomly assigned by SPSS statistical software according to the aforementioned serial number (130 cases): 60 cases of MSCT alone in group A (MSCTA + MSCTE), 60 cases of CE alone in group B, and 30 cases of both MSCT and CE in group C. We used the Rv.Uniform command in SPSS software to apply the random number table method as follows:(1)
Using Rv.Uniform, 130 random numbers are output and these random numbers are assigned to each case, in order to divide these random numbers by 3. Patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 0 are included in group A; patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 1 are included in group B; patients corresponding to the number with a remainder of 2 are included in group C. As a result, 49, 41, and 40 patients are enrolled in groups A, B, and C, respectively, and the software specifically returns the results.(2)
To meet the projected grouping goals, 1 patient in group C needs to be realigned to group A; 9 patients in group C need to be realigned to group B. Therefore, each group of patients will need to be renumbered.(3)
Using Rv.Uniform, output 1 random number, and the output is 26. We divide 26 by 40, and the remainder is 26, so the 26th patient in group C, renumbered, is included in group A.(4)
We use Rv.Uniform to output 9 random numbers, which are 32, 18, 42, 41, 34, 89, 67, 14, and 23, and divide these 9 random numbers by 40, and the remaining numbers are 32, 18, 2, 1, 34, 9, 27, 14, and 23. Therefore, the 32nd, 18th, 2nd, 1st, 34th, 9th, 27th, 14th, and 23rd patients renumbered in group C are included in group B. 14 and 23 patients in group C were included in group B.


## 3. Preoperative Evaluation of Early Cancers of the Digestive Tract

### 3.1. Preoperative Evaluation of Early Cancers of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

There are many methods for preoperative evaluation of early upper gastrointestinal cancer, such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnifying endoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Endoscopy is still the most effective and reliable method to diagnose and treat early cancers of the digestive tract in clinical practice. With the widespread use of endoscopy, the detection rate of early tumorigenic lesions in the GI tract has increased significantly. The invasiveness of most precancerous lesions can only be definitively excluded after appropriate endoscopic resection. However, endoscopy can clearly observe the small early lesions but can do nothing about whether the tumor has distant organ metastases; CT and MRI are more sensitive and accurate in determining whether the tumor lesions are combined with distant metastases, but less sensitive in determining the infiltration depth of early tumors. These preoperative examination methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, as shown in Figure2. How to arrange these examinations for patients in order to achieve a win-win situation in terms of economy and accuracy is a question worth exploring.Figure 2
Advantages and disadvantages of preoperative examination methods.


### 3.2. Determination of the Depth of Lesion Infiltration

For patients requiring endoscopic treatment, the depth of lesion involvement should be clarified during the preoperative examination. Mucosal carcinoma has a significantly lower risk of lymph node metastasis than submucosal carcinoma, so clarifying the depth of lesion infiltration also helps us to speculate the magnitude of the risk of lymph node metastasis. Endoscopy and upper gastrointestinal air-barium double-contrast imaging remain the basic research tools for the diagnosis of gastric cancer; however, these techniques are based exclusively on the mucosal depiction and are limited by their inability to assess extraplasmic lesions. This means that they are not suitable for T-staging according to the TNM system. Ultrasound endoscopy and computed tomography are commonly used preoperative imaging examinations for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract, but the best method seems to be EUS, in particular. Ultrasound endoscopy can be to distinguish superficial mucosal and submucosal infiltrates and to exclude infiltrates in the deeper muscular layers. High-frequency probes can more accurately differentiate between mucosal and submucosal carcinomas compared to conventional EUS. The use of ultrasound endoscopy for preoperative assessment of lesion infiltration depth and the probability of lymph node metastasis in early esophageal cancer has been widely accepted, but some studies have concluded that ultrasound gastroscopy is less accurate in staging esophageal cancer. The results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound gastroscopy in determining the depth of tumor infiltration were 80%–90% and more than 90%, respectively, which endorsed the role of ultrasound gastroscopy in esophageal cancer staging. However, a retrospective study showed that the concordance between the depth of tumor involvement determined by ultrasound gastroscopy and postoperative pathology was only 53%–65%, especially in distinguishing between stage T2 tumors that invade the lamina propria and stage T3 tumors that invade the epithelium. Thus, we conclude that preoperative ultrasound is not very reliable in determining the stage of esophageal cancer. Studies have shown that ultrasound gastroscopy has only a 56% compliance rate when determining the depth of infiltration of early gastrointestinal cancer with postoperative pathology, which shows that ultrasound gastroscopy has only a limited ability to accurately determine T1N0 and T2N0 tumors. Several recent studies have shown that NBI-ME is another useful method for predicting the depth of infiltration, and the Japanese Esophageal Society (JES) has suggested a diagnostic accuracy of approximately 90% using NBI-ME according to JES staging criteria, but to date, there are fewer reports on which one has a higher predictive accuracy between EUS and NBI-ME. It was found that the sensitivity of EUS and ME-NBI for differentiating epithelial/lamina propria from SM1 under the same circumstances was 72% and 83%, and the accuracy was 70% and 82%, respectively, and that the sensitivity and accuracy of NBI-ME were significantly higher than those of EUS and the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 varied with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 with changes in tumor location, size, and macroscopic type, as shown in Figure3. This suggests that ME-NBI may be more useful than EUS for determining the depth of infiltration of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma before endoscopic treatment. The overall accuracy of CT with a layer thickness of 5 mm for T-staging of gastric cancer has been reported to be poor at about 66–82%, while the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of multirow spiral CT for assessing plasma membrane infiltration can be as high as 80–90%, 95–97%, and 93%. However, these CTs do not have the ability to differentiate between T1a and T1b lesions. The accuracy of T-staging using virtual gastroscopy with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images was 74.7%–82.2%, which was not statistically significantly different from the accuracy of ultrasound endoscopic T-staging of 76.9%–83.7%. This shows that EUS is more accurate in evaluating lesions at T1a and T1b stages, and even the newer technology MDCT simulation gastroscopy is still less accurate than EUS in evaluating lesions at T1a and T1b stages, but MDCT simulation gastroscopy is more accurate than EUS for lesions at T2 or deeper. NBI-ME is also more reliable in predicting the depth of infiltration of lesions, and studies have shown that it may be more accurate than ultrasound gastroscopy in predicting the depth of infiltration of early esophageal cancer. For patients with suspected early gastric cancer, EUS is of high value, and if the infiltration limits of the lesion are observed by EUS, NBI-ME and MDCT can also be performed simultaneously to understand whether there is deeper infiltration, so that more appropriate treatment can be selected.Figure 3
ME-NBI for differentiating the depth of infiltration of squamous cell carcinoma.Several recent studies have shown that NBI-ME is another useful method for predicting the depth of infiltration, and the JES has suggested a diagnostic accuracy of approximately 90% using NBI-ME according to JES staging criteria, but to date, there are fewer reports on which one has better predictive accuracy between EUS and NBI-ME. The sensitivity and accuracy of NBI-ME were significantly higher than those of EUS, and the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 varied with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. This suggests that ME-NBI may be more useful than EUS for determining the depth of infiltration of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma before endoscopic treatment. The study showed that ME-NBI overestimated the depth of tumor invasion by 6% and the overestimation can be attributed to submucosal tumor-like lesions and underestimated the depth of tumor invasion by 12%, which can be attributed to the following factors: (1) white moss on the surface makes detection difficult, and (2) papillary structures in the infarcted area of the tumor are not adequately reflected. In this study, the accuracy of EUS and NBI-ME for single discrimination of tumor infiltration depth was 79.8%, and there was no significant difference between them, which is not consistent with Mizumoto’s opinion that the accuracy of NBI-ME is higher than that of EUS, and considering the small number of cases in this study, further studies with large samples are still needed to be verified. However, the accuracy of the combined assessment of EUS, NBI-ME, and CT in determining the depth of tumor infiltration could reach 100%, which was significantly higher than that of EUS alone. In addition to ultrasound gastroscopy, which has been mentioned above, CT and positron emission tomography (PET) are commonly used to assess the presence of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer.CT is currently the most widely used, but it is not sensitive to regional lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. In contrast, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) has become a popular detection method for local lymph node metastases in patients with esophageal cancer due to its unique metabolic capacity for active lesions. FDG-PET has significantly higher diagnostic performance than CT for distant metastases and is not affected by patient characteristics. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is the most sensitive, while CT and FDG-PET favor more specific detection. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET may have a higher sensitivity than CT. The combination of the two may be more clinically valuable; as FDG-PET may detect possible metastases, CT may confirm or exclude their presence and pinpoint their location. Studies have shown sensitivities and specificities of 50% and 83% for CT and 57% and 85% for 18FDG PET, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for N-staging are approximately 80% and 70%. Ultrasound gastroscopy missed lymph node metastases in 11% of c T1 tumors and 24% of c T2 tumors, whereas the risk of missing lymph node metastases was only 4% with EUS combined with PET, indicating that EUS combined with PET for early esophageal cancer staging may improve its clinical accuracy, as shown in Figure4. These results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET are each unique in detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer. Because of the high cost of PET, it is not currently used as a routine test before endoscopic resection.Figure 4
Sensitivity and specificity of CT and 18FDG-PET.In this study, the combined use of EUS and CT to detect lymph node metastases showed that one case of regional lymph node enlargement was detected by ultrasound endoscopy, which was not detected on CT. In one patient who underwent surgery because the tumor was judged to be more malignant under NBI-ME, the postoperative pathology showed lymph node metastases that were not detected on EUS and CT. Possible reasons for these findings are as follows: EUS has a limited penetration depth of approximately 5 cm for the esophageal wall, so metastases in distant lymph nodes or organs are usually not detected by EUS; CT is unable to detect metastases in normal-sized lymph nodes; and lymph node enlargement may contain metastases but may also be inflammatory in nature. It is still reliable for excluding regional lymph node metastases. Therefore, when certain patients have inflammatory enlargement of lymph nodes due to a combination of other diseases, EUS and CT cannot determine the nature of lymph node enlargement, the depth of lesion infiltration determined by a combination of other examination methods can be used to estimate the possibility of lymph node metastasis, and the lymph node changes can be observed in the postoperative follow-up. In this study, there may be cases of lymph node metastasis that were not detected by EUS and CT in the endoscopically treated patients, and we will continue to closely follow up the patients treated by endoscopy.


### 3.3. Determination of the Extent of Lesion Involvement

The extent of the lesion needs to be clarified before treatment of early cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract to determine whether endoscopic treatment can be performed. A change in the morphology of the gastric hollows (e.g., oval and plaque) and a clear boundary between the tumor and the surrounding normal tissue are necessary for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. According to Japanese gastric cancer guidelines, if the extent of lesion involvement exceeds 3 cm and if the extent of lesion involvement cannot be accurately determined, there may be residual lesions and tumor recurrence, so endoscopic treatment requires preoperative determination of the extent of lesion involvement. General white light gastroscopy is the most commonly used method for early gastric cancer diagnosis, and the scope of lesions can be observed visually under endoscopy, but gastric cancer generally progresses gradually from inflammation, and inflammation can also appear as subtle morphological changes of gastric mucosa, so it may be difficult to distinguish inflammatory lesions from cancerous lesions. Changes in the morphology of capillary collaterals and glandular ducts within the epithelial papillae of the upper gastrointestinal tract and the boundary between normal and cancerous tissue can be clearly observed under NBI-ME, which can be applied to assess the size and extent of lesions before endoscopic treatment, as shown in Figure5. The magnified gastroscopy combined with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) showed clear images, with early cancerous tissues appearing red or reddish in color under NBI-ME and clearly demarcated from the surrounding normal tissues; the study showed that both NBI and stained endoscopy were better than ordinary white light endoscopy in terms of clarity of the lesion contours. The study showed that the accuracy and specificity of ME-NBI were greater than those of plain white light gastroscopy, with insignificant sensitivity, and the combination of ME-NBI and plain white light gastroscopy showed significantly increased accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with plain white light gastroscopy alone. In addition to ME-NBI, Lugol’s iodine staining is also an important technique for determining the extent of tumor lesions in early gastric cancer at present and has the same high sensitivity for detecting early gastric cancer. However, some experts believe that Lugo’s staining endoscopy can clearly show the boundary between the tumor and the surrounding normal mucosa, has better color contrast and reliability than NBI-ME, and is the standard method to determine the extent of tumor lesions. Of course, we can also combine iodine staining and NBI magnification to accurately determine the size and boundary of the lesion, actively prevent residual horizontal margin resection and unnecessary over resection, and reduce the occurrence of postoperative malformation and stenosis. However, it is subjective and random due to the different experience of physicians. Further NBI-ME examination of suspected lesions and targeted biopsy will provide more reliable results.Figure 5
Determination of the extent of lesion involvement.The combination of upper gastrointestinal tumors with lymph node metastasis can have a decisive impact on the choice of treatment modality for early-stage upper gastrointestinal cancer. Studies have shown that the risk of lymph node metastasis is primarily based on the depth of tumor invasion. The risk of lymph node metastasis increased to 8%–18% for lesions invading the muscularis mucosa (M3), 11%–53% for lesions invading below 200μm of the submucosa (SM1), and 30%–54% for deeper lesions (SM2). In addition to ultrasound gastroscopy, which has been mentioned above, CT and PET are commonly used to assess the presence of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. EUS is more accurate than multilayer spiral CT in determining local infiltration of gastric cancer, that is, T-stage, especially for early gastric cancer, and can be an effective tool for determining local infiltration of gastric cancer; however, it is not very different from multilayer spiral CT in determining lymph node metastasis of gastric cancer, that is, N-stage. However, some scholars believe that EUS is the most accurate method for lymph node staging compared with CT. It has been suggested that EUS is reliable for excluding regional lymph node metastasis. In addition, 18FDG-PET has become a popular detection method for patients with esophageal cancer because of its unique metabolic capacity for active lesions. The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET for distant metastases is significantly higher than that of CT and is not affected by patient characteristics. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is the most sensitive, while CT and FDG-PET favor more specific detection. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET may have a higher sensitivity than CT. The combination of the two may be of greater clinical value, as FDG-PET may detect possible metastases, while CT may confirm or exclude their presence and pinpoint their location. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and 18FDG PET were shown to be 50% and 83% and 57% and 85%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for N-staging were about 80% and 70%. Ultrasound gastroscopy missed lymph node metastases in 11% of c T1 tumors and 24% of c T2 tumors, whereas the risk of missing lymph node metastases was only 4% with EUS combined with PET, indicating that EUS combined with PET for early esophageal cancer staging can improve its clinical accuracy. These results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET are each unique in detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors. Because of the high cost of PET, it is not currently used as a routine test before endoscopic resection. Therefore, when some patients have inflammatory enlargement of lymph nodes caused by other diseases in combination and EUS and CT cannot determine the nature of lymph node enlargement, the depth of lesion infiltration determined by other examination methods can be combined to estimate the possibility of lymph node metastasis, and lymph node changes can be observed in the postoperative follow-up.


## 3.1. Preoperative Evaluation of Early Cancers of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

There are many methods for preoperative evaluation of early upper gastrointestinal cancer, such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnifying endoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Endoscopy is still the most effective and reliable method to diagnose and treat early cancers of the digestive tract in clinical practice. With the widespread use of endoscopy, the detection rate of early tumorigenic lesions in the GI tract has increased significantly. The invasiveness of most precancerous lesions can only be definitively excluded after appropriate endoscopic resection. However, endoscopy can clearly observe the small early lesions but can do nothing about whether the tumor has distant organ metastases; CT and MRI are more sensitive and accurate in determining whether the tumor lesions are combined with distant metastases, but less sensitive in determining the infiltration depth of early tumors. These preoperative examination methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, as shown in Figure2. How to arrange these examinations for patients in order to achieve a win-win situation in terms of economy and accuracy is a question worth exploring.Figure 2
Advantages and disadvantages of preoperative examination methods.


## 3.2. Determination of the Depth of Lesion Infiltration

For patients requiring endoscopic treatment, the depth of lesion involvement should be clarified during the preoperative examination. Mucosal carcinoma has a significantly lower risk of lymph node metastasis than submucosal carcinoma, so clarifying the depth of lesion infiltration also helps us to speculate the magnitude of the risk of lymph node metastasis. Endoscopy and upper gastrointestinal air-barium double-contrast imaging remain the basic research tools for the diagnosis of gastric cancer; however, these techniques are based exclusively on the mucosal depiction and are limited by their inability to assess extraplasmic lesions. This means that they are not suitable for T-staging according to the TNM system. Ultrasound endoscopy and computed tomography are commonly used preoperative imaging examinations for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract, but the best method seems to be EUS, in particular. Ultrasound endoscopy can be to distinguish superficial mucosal and submucosal infiltrates and to exclude infiltrates in the deeper muscular layers. High-frequency probes can more accurately differentiate between mucosal and submucosal carcinomas compared to conventional EUS. The use of ultrasound endoscopy for preoperative assessment of lesion infiltration depth and the probability of lymph node metastasis in early esophageal cancer has been widely accepted, but some studies have concluded that ultrasound gastroscopy is less accurate in staging esophageal cancer. The results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound gastroscopy in determining the depth of tumor infiltration were 80%–90% and more than 90%, respectively, which endorsed the role of ultrasound gastroscopy in esophageal cancer staging. However, a retrospective study showed that the concordance between the depth of tumor involvement determined by ultrasound gastroscopy and postoperative pathology was only 53%–65%, especially in distinguishing between stage T2 tumors that invade the lamina propria and stage T3 tumors that invade the epithelium. Thus, we conclude that preoperative ultrasound is not very reliable in determining the stage of esophageal cancer. Studies have shown that ultrasound gastroscopy has only a 56% compliance rate when determining the depth of infiltration of early gastrointestinal cancer with postoperative pathology, which shows that ultrasound gastroscopy has only a limited ability to accurately determine T1N0 and T2N0 tumors. Several recent studies have shown that NBI-ME is another useful method for predicting the depth of infiltration, and the Japanese Esophageal Society (JES) has suggested a diagnostic accuracy of approximately 90% using NBI-ME according to JES staging criteria, but to date, there are fewer reports on which one has a higher predictive accuracy between EUS and NBI-ME. It was found that the sensitivity of EUS and ME-NBI for differentiating epithelial/lamina propria from SM1 under the same circumstances was 72% and 83%, and the accuracy was 70% and 82%, respectively, and that the sensitivity and accuracy of NBI-ME were significantly higher than those of EUS and the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 varied with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 with changes in tumor location, size, and macroscopic type, as shown in Figure3. This suggests that ME-NBI may be more useful than EUS for determining the depth of infiltration of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma before endoscopic treatment. The overall accuracy of CT with a layer thickness of 5 mm for T-staging of gastric cancer has been reported to be poor at about 66–82%, while the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of multirow spiral CT for assessing plasma membrane infiltration can be as high as 80–90%, 95–97%, and 93%. However, these CTs do not have the ability to differentiate between T1a and T1b lesions. The accuracy of T-staging using virtual gastroscopy with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images was 74.7%–82.2%, which was not statistically significantly different from the accuracy of ultrasound endoscopic T-staging of 76.9%–83.7%. This shows that EUS is more accurate in evaluating lesions at T1a and T1b stages, and even the newer technology MDCT simulation gastroscopy is still less accurate than EUS in evaluating lesions at T1a and T1b stages, but MDCT simulation gastroscopy is more accurate than EUS for lesions at T2 or deeper. NBI-ME is also more reliable in predicting the depth of infiltration of lesions, and studies have shown that it may be more accurate than ultrasound gastroscopy in predicting the depth of infiltration of early esophageal cancer. For patients with suspected early gastric cancer, EUS is of high value, and if the infiltration limits of the lesion are observed by EUS, NBI-ME and MDCT can also be performed simultaneously to understand whether there is deeper infiltration, so that more appropriate treatment can be selected.Figure 3
ME-NBI for differentiating the depth of infiltration of squamous cell carcinoma.Several recent studies have shown that NBI-ME is another useful method for predicting the depth of infiltration, and the JES has suggested a diagnostic accuracy of approximately 90% using NBI-ME according to JES staging criteria, but to date, there are fewer reports on which one has better predictive accuracy between EUS and NBI-ME. The sensitivity and accuracy of NBI-ME were significantly higher than those of EUS, and the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 varied with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracy of ME-NBI for differentiating between epithelial/lamina propria and SM1 with tumor location, size, and macroscopic type. This suggests that ME-NBI may be more useful than EUS for determining the depth of infiltration of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma before endoscopic treatment. The study showed that ME-NBI overestimated the depth of tumor invasion by 6% and the overestimation can be attributed to submucosal tumor-like lesions and underestimated the depth of tumor invasion by 12%, which can be attributed to the following factors: (1) white moss on the surface makes detection difficult, and (2) papillary structures in the infarcted area of the tumor are not adequately reflected. In this study, the accuracy of EUS and NBI-ME for single discrimination of tumor infiltration depth was 79.8%, and there was no significant difference between them, which is not consistent with Mizumoto’s opinion that the accuracy of NBI-ME is higher than that of EUS, and considering the small number of cases in this study, further studies with large samples are still needed to be verified. However, the accuracy of the combined assessment of EUS, NBI-ME, and CT in determining the depth of tumor infiltration could reach 100%, which was significantly higher than that of EUS alone. In addition to ultrasound gastroscopy, which has been mentioned above, CT and positron emission tomography (PET) are commonly used to assess the presence of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer.CT is currently the most widely used, but it is not sensitive to regional lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. In contrast, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) has become a popular detection method for local lymph node metastases in patients with esophageal cancer due to its unique metabolic capacity for active lesions. FDG-PET has significantly higher diagnostic performance than CT for distant metastases and is not affected by patient characteristics. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is the most sensitive, while CT and FDG-PET favor more specific detection. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET may have a higher sensitivity than CT. The combination of the two may be more clinically valuable; as FDG-PET may detect possible metastases, CT may confirm or exclude their presence and pinpoint their location. Studies have shown sensitivities and specificities of 50% and 83% for CT and 57% and 85% for 18FDG PET, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for N-staging are approximately 80% and 70%. Ultrasound gastroscopy missed lymph node metastases in 11% of c T1 tumors and 24% of c T2 tumors, whereas the risk of missing lymph node metastases was only 4% with EUS combined with PET, indicating that EUS combined with PET for early esophageal cancer staging may improve its clinical accuracy, as shown in Figure4. These results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET are each unique in detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal cancer. Because of the high cost of PET, it is not currently used as a routine test before endoscopic resection.Figure 4
Sensitivity and specificity of CT and 18FDG-PET.In this study, the combined use of EUS and CT to detect lymph node metastases showed that one case of regional lymph node enlargement was detected by ultrasound endoscopy, which was not detected on CT. In one patient who underwent surgery because the tumor was judged to be more malignant under NBI-ME, the postoperative pathology showed lymph node metastases that were not detected on EUS and CT. Possible reasons for these findings are as follows: EUS has a limited penetration depth of approximately 5 cm for the esophageal wall, so metastases in distant lymph nodes or organs are usually not detected by EUS; CT is unable to detect metastases in normal-sized lymph nodes; and lymph node enlargement may contain metastases but may also be inflammatory in nature. It is still reliable for excluding regional lymph node metastases. Therefore, when certain patients have inflammatory enlargement of lymph nodes due to a combination of other diseases, EUS and CT cannot determine the nature of lymph node enlargement, the depth of lesion infiltration determined by a combination of other examination methods can be used to estimate the possibility of lymph node metastasis, and the lymph node changes can be observed in the postoperative follow-up. In this study, there may be cases of lymph node metastasis that were not detected by EUS and CT in the endoscopically treated patients, and we will continue to closely follow up the patients treated by endoscopy.


## 3.3. Determination of the Extent of Lesion Involvement

The extent of the lesion needs to be clarified before treatment of early cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract to determine whether endoscopic treatment can be performed. A change in the morphology of the gastric hollows (e.g., oval and plaque) and a clear boundary between the tumor and the surrounding normal tissue are necessary for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. According to Japanese gastric cancer guidelines, if the extent of lesion involvement exceeds 3 cm and if the extent of lesion involvement cannot be accurately determined, there may be residual lesions and tumor recurrence, so endoscopic treatment requires preoperative determination of the extent of lesion involvement. General white light gastroscopy is the most commonly used method for early gastric cancer diagnosis, and the scope of lesions can be observed visually under endoscopy, but gastric cancer generally progresses gradually from inflammation, and inflammation can also appear as subtle morphological changes of gastric mucosa, so it may be difficult to distinguish inflammatory lesions from cancerous lesions. Changes in the morphology of capillary collaterals and glandular ducts within the epithelial papillae of the upper gastrointestinal tract and the boundary between normal and cancerous tissue can be clearly observed under NBI-ME, which can be applied to assess the size and extent of lesions before endoscopic treatment, as shown in Figure5. The magnified gastroscopy combined with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) showed clear images, with early cancerous tissues appearing red or reddish in color under NBI-ME and clearly demarcated from the surrounding normal tissues; the study showed that both NBI and stained endoscopy were better than ordinary white light endoscopy in terms of clarity of the lesion contours. The study showed that the accuracy and specificity of ME-NBI were greater than those of plain white light gastroscopy, with insignificant sensitivity, and the combination of ME-NBI and plain white light gastroscopy showed significantly increased accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with plain white light gastroscopy alone. In addition to ME-NBI, Lugol’s iodine staining is also an important technique for determining the extent of tumor lesions in early gastric cancer at present and has the same high sensitivity for detecting early gastric cancer. However, some experts believe that Lugo’s staining endoscopy can clearly show the boundary between the tumor and the surrounding normal mucosa, has better color contrast and reliability than NBI-ME, and is the standard method to determine the extent of tumor lesions. Of course, we can also combine iodine staining and NBI magnification to accurately determine the size and boundary of the lesion, actively prevent residual horizontal margin resection and unnecessary over resection, and reduce the occurrence of postoperative malformation and stenosis. However, it is subjective and random due to the different experience of physicians. Further NBI-ME examination of suspected lesions and targeted biopsy will provide more reliable results.Figure 5
Determination of the extent of lesion involvement.The combination of upper gastrointestinal tumors with lymph node metastasis can have a decisive impact on the choice of treatment modality for early-stage upper gastrointestinal cancer. Studies have shown that the risk of lymph node metastasis is primarily based on the depth of tumor invasion. The risk of lymph node metastasis increased to 8%–18% for lesions invading the muscularis mucosa (M3), 11%–53% for lesions invading below 200μm of the submucosa (SM1), and 30%–54% for deeper lesions (SM2). In addition to ultrasound gastroscopy, which has been mentioned above, CT and PET are commonly used to assess the presence of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. EUS is more accurate than multilayer spiral CT in determining local infiltration of gastric cancer, that is, T-stage, especially for early gastric cancer, and can be an effective tool for determining local infiltration of gastric cancer; however, it is not very different from multilayer spiral CT in determining lymph node metastasis of gastric cancer, that is, N-stage. However, some scholars believe that EUS is the most accurate method for lymph node staging compared with CT. It has been suggested that EUS is reliable for excluding regional lymph node metastasis. In addition, 18FDG-PET has become a popular detection method for patients with esophageal cancer because of its unique metabolic capacity for active lesions. The diagnostic performance of FDG-PET for distant metastases is significantly higher than that of CT and is not affected by patient characteristics. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, EUS is the most sensitive, while CT and FDG-PET favor more specific detection. For the evaluation of distant metastases, FDG-PET may have a higher sensitivity than CT. The combination of the two may be of greater clinical value, as FDG-PET may detect possible metastases, while CT may confirm or exclude their presence and pinpoint their location. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and 18FDG PET were shown to be 50% and 83% and 57% and 85%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for N-staging were about 80% and 70%. Ultrasound gastroscopy missed lymph node metastases in 11% of c T1 tumors and 24% of c T2 tumors, whereas the risk of missing lymph node metastases was only 4% with EUS combined with PET, indicating that EUS combined with PET for early esophageal cancer staging can improve its clinical accuracy. These results suggest that EUS, CT, and FDG-PET are each unique in detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors. Because of the high cost of PET, it is not currently used as a routine test before endoscopic resection. Therefore, when some patients have inflammatory enlargement of lymph nodes caused by other diseases in combination and EUS and CT cannot determine the nature of lymph node enlargement, the depth of lesion infiltration determined by other examination methods can be combined to estimate the possibility of lymph node metastasis, and lymph node changes can be observed in the postoperative follow-up.


## 4. Results and Discussion

The superior mesenteric artery is the blood supply vessel of the small intestine, knowledge of the anatomy, distribution, and characteristics of the mesenteric vessels can help us diagnose and identify various variants and small bowel lesions, and the display capability of the MSCTA images is similar to that of DSA. The overall effect of MSCTA is similar to that of DSA, with MPR, MIP, and VRT, which have different methods and advantages for displaying small mesenteric arteries as a whole (macroscopic structures) and locally (microscopic details). The display effectiveness and diagnostic efficacy of small intestinal MSCTA depend on the examination and display method. The first part of this study (MSCTE study) has focused on the display of small intestinal marginal vessels, as shown in Figure6, and the graded and continuous display of individual (single group) images of mesenteric vessels is generally indicative of the diagnostic efficacy of the images, and in view of this, it is important to study and explore the individualized display of mesenteric vessel CTA. In view of this, it is important to study and explore the individualized display method of mesenteric vascular CTA.Figure 6
Display of blood vessels at the intestinal margin of the small intestine.The superior mesenteric artery originates mostly from the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta at the level of the first lumbar vertebra, travels anteriorly and inferiorly behind the pancreatic neck, crosses out at its inferior border, and travels anteriorly and inferiorly across the horizontal part of the duodenum. The right and middle colic arteries travel behind the peritoneum and are relatively fixed in position, while the rest of the above branches can have a certain range of movement in the abdominal cavity as the position of the small intestine changes. The other 12 to 18 jejunoileal arteries emanate to the left side. The distal branches of the superior mesenteric artery radiate into the intestinal wall in the mesentery, and their branches anastomose to form an arterial arch. The last level of the arterial arch emits small rectal (canal) arteries that enter the wall of the small intestine from the mesenteric margin of the small intestine. Generally, there is only one level of arterial arch in the proximal segment of the jejunum, and the number of arterial arch levels increases from near to far, up to 4∼5 levels in the late jejunum and proximal segment of the ileum. Relatively speaking, the rectal (ductal) artery of the jejunum is long and thick, while the ileum is short and small. The ileocolic artery originates from the right wall of the superior mesenteric artery, and its origin is often used as the demarcation between the jejunal and ileal arteries. The MSCTA of our group showed that the superior mesenteric artery gave off a total of 9–13 jejuno- and ileal arteries. In this study, the beginning of the ileocolic artery was used as a delimitation to determine the jejunal and ileal arteries, showing 3–8 Jejunal arteries, with 3–5 branches representing the majority (81.7%), 3–7 ileal arteries, 3-4 branches with 85,0%, 1 ileocolic artery, and 1 mesocolic artery, as shown in Figure7. The above branch numbers are similar to those reported in the literature and to some extent, they also illustrate the reliability of the MSCTA study and the method of indicating mesenteric vessels in this study.Figure 7
Determination of lesion index in the ileocolic artery.MSCTA can not only observe the normal anatomy and variants of the superior mesenteric artery but also diagnose the superior mesenteric artery pinch angle syndrome and vascular arterial travel variants. Another study concluded that MSCTA can observe lesions of the superior mesenteric artery itself from multiple angles and is currently an important examination method for evaluating lesions of the superior mesenteric artery and its branches, as well as the condition of perivascular structures. It can also be used for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of ischemic lesions, inflammatory lesions, and neoplastic lesions in the small intestine by observing and evaluating the arterial arch and the rectal small arteries on the mesenteric side of the intestinal margin with MSCTA. In addition, mesenteric vascular CTA allows localization and qualitative diagnosis of nonvascular lesions in the blood supply area. The localization can be determined according to the blood supplying arteries: pancreaticoduodenal artery for the duodenum, jejunum artery for the jejunum, ileum artery for the ileum, and ileocolic artery for the distal segment of the ileum. The localization can also be judged according to the intestinal marginal vessels: the arterial arch of the ileum has fewer levels (1–2) and longer rectal vessels; the arterial arch of the ileum has more levels (4–5) and shorter rectal vessels. The specific signs of Crohn’s disease, such as the “wooden comb sign” and the “vascular lake” of the tumor, are helpful for qualitative diagnosis. In this study, 64-layer spiral CT was used, and 370 mg I/ml of highly concentrated nonionic intravenous contrast agent was injected at a high rate of 4–5 ml/s to facilitate the visualization of the distal branches of the mesenteric artery. The results from the first part of the study and the present group of cases showed that there were significant differences in the ability to display the branches of the superior mesenteric artery in the images produced by different postprocessing modalities, as shown in Figure8. Therefore, it is important to study and summarize the respective characteristics and advantages of different postprocessing methods of MSCTA for the promotion of the mesenteric vascular MSCTA technique and for the improvement of its diagnostic efficacy.Figure 8
Differences in superior mesenteric artery branches.


## 5. Conclusion

The results showed that when some patients had inflammatory enlargement of lymph nodes caused by other diseases and EUS and CT could not determine the nature of lymph node enlargement, the depth of lesion infiltration could be combined with other examination methods to estimate the possibility of lymph node metastasis, and the lymph node changes could be observed in the postoperative follow-up. In this study, there may be cases of lymph node metastasis that were not detected by EUS and CT in the endoscopically treated patients, and we will continue to closely follow up the patients treated endoscopically. In this study, the pathology after endoscopic treatment showed that 11 cases involved the horizontal cut edge and the vertical cut edge was not involved, and the accuracy rate of comprehensive assessment was 86.9%; the accuracy rate of determining the depth of lesion involvement could reach 100%, which was higher than that of EUS and CT alone, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). For patients suspected to have early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions by ordinary white light gastroscopy and biopsy, the combined assessment of early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesion staging by NBI-ME, EUS, and CT had a higher assessment accuracy, especially for assessing the lesion depth.



---

*Source: 6673712-2021-03-17.xml*