Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2013; 19(33): 5520-5527
Published online Sep 7, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i33.5520
Published online Sep 7, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i33.5520
Table 4 Mean tumor apparent diffusion coefficient values and P values for the comparisons between groups
Group | Apparent diffusion coefficient values (× 10-3 mm2/s) | |||||
Week 0 | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | |
T downstage (n = 8) | 0.702 | 0.720 | 0.890 | 0.724 | 0.690 | 0.743 |
No T downstage (n = 7) | 0.803 | 0.824 | 0.877 | 0.875 | 0.851 | 0.947 |
P value | 0.339 | 0.463 | 0.909 | 0.202 | 0.108 | 0.114 |
Good regression (n = 9) | 0.658 | 0.670 | 0.851 | 0.618 | 0.673 | 0.713 |
Poor regression (n = 6) | 0.885 | 0.907 | 0.933 | 0.938 | 0.903 | 1.027 |
P value | 0.021 | 0.081 | 0.452 | 0.032 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
- Citation: Cai G, Xu Y, Zhu J, Gu WL, Zhang S, Ma XJ, Cai SJ, Zhang Z. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the response of rectal cancer to neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(33): 5520-5527
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i33/5520.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i33.5520