AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by STASSA, G.
Right arrow Articles by KLINGENSMITH, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by STASSA, G.
Right arrow Articles by KLINGENSMITH, W. C., III
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 107, 105-110, Copyright © 1969 by American Roentgen Ray Society


PRIMARY TUMORS OF THE DUODENAL BULB

GEORGE STASSA M.D.1 and WILLIAM C. KLINGENSMITH III M.D.1

1 From the Department of Radiology, the New York Hospital—Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York

From 1932 through 1967, at The New York Hospital there were 64 primary duodenal tumors, 35 benign and 29 malignant. Many histologic types were found among the benign tumors. Distal to the bulb, all but one of the 26 malignant tumors were carcinomas, while none of the 3 malignant bulb tumors was of this type. Benign tumors were much more common than malignant tumors in the bulb (14:3).

With respect to the bulb alone, there were twice as many males as females. Patients had an average age of 61 years, and all were white.

[See figures in the PDF file]

The symptoms and response to a milkalkali regimen of patients with a bulb tumor were indistinguishable from those of patients with a duodenal peptic ulcer.

Polypoid intraluminal tumors were diagnosed correctly on preoperative gastrointestinal roentgenograms, and these tumors were always benign. However, there appears to be no way to differentiate the histologic types on gastrointestinal examination.

Intramural tumors without a significant intraluminal component were consistently misdiagnosed as ulcer or deformed bulb. Of 6 such tumors 5 had associated ulcers at operation. After reviewing the preoperative gastrointestinal series, it is suggested that the findings of an unusually large bulb or ulcer, or a bizarre configuration such as the lucent area in Figure 5, A and B should raise the possibility of intramural tumor. Half of these intramural tumors were malignant.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1969 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.