AIM： To evaluate computed tomography （CT） findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease （RCD） and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma （EATL）. METHODS： Coeliac disease （CD） patients...AIM： To evaluate computed tomography （CT） findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease （RCD） and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma （EATL）. METHODS： Coeliac disease （CD） patients were divided into two groups. Group Ⅰ ： uncomplicated CD （n = 14） and RCD type Ⅰ （n = 10）. Group Ⅱ ： RCD type Ⅱ （n = 15） and EATL （n = 7）. RESULTS： Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group Ⅰ vs 5 in group Ⅱ （P = 0.06）. Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group Ⅱ vs no patients in group Ⅰ （P = 0.01）. Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group Ⅰ vs Ⅱ in group 11 （P = 0.02）. Eleven patients （50%） in group 11 had a splenic volume 〈 122 cm^3 vs 4 in group Ⅰ （14%）, 10 patients in group Ⅰ had a splenic volume 〉 196 cm^3 （66.7%） vs 5 in group Ⅱ （33.3%） P = 0.028. CONCLUSION： CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and （Pre） EATL. RCD Ⅱ and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD Ⅰ.展开更多
文摘AIM： To evaluate computed tomography （CT） findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease （RCD） and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma （EATL）. METHODS： Coeliac disease （CD） patients were divided into two groups. Group Ⅰ ： uncomplicated CD （n = 14） and RCD type Ⅰ （n = 10）. Group Ⅱ ： RCD type Ⅱ （n = 15） and EATL （n = 7）. RESULTS： Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group Ⅰ vs 5 in group Ⅱ （P = 0.06）. Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group Ⅱ vs no patients in group Ⅰ （P = 0.01）. Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group Ⅰ vs Ⅱ in group 11 （P = 0.02）. Eleven patients （50%） in group 11 had a splenic volume 〈 122 cm^3 vs 4 in group Ⅰ （14%）, 10 patients in group Ⅰ had a splenic volume 〉 196 cm^3 （66.7%） vs 5 in group Ⅱ （33.3%） P = 0.028. CONCLUSION： CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and （Pre） EATL. RCD Ⅱ and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD Ⅰ.
