Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2019; 25(21): 2636-2649
Published online Jun 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i21.2636
Table 2 Imaging characteristics compared between the pathologic stage T2 group and T1 group, n (%)
CharacteristicspT2, n = 39pT1, n = 75P value
T2 hyperintensity37 (94.9)68 (90.7)0.716
T1 hypointensity35 (89.7)69 (92.0)0.733
Arterial enhancement38 (97.4)70 (93.3)0.662
Corona enhancement14 (35.9)13 (17.3)0.037
Washout appearance36 (92.3)69 (92.0)1.000
Capsular appearance14 (35.9)38 (50.7)0.167
Hypointensity of tumor in the HB phase37 (94.9)74 (98.7)0.269
Peritumoral hypointensity in the HB phase16 (41.0)18 (24.0)0.084
Hypointense-rim in the HB phase5 (12.8)21 (28.0)0.099
Intratumoral fat8 (20.5)18 (24.0)0.815
Hyperintensity on DWI39 (100.0)72 (96.0)0.550
Hypointensity on ADC map16 (41.0)32 (42.7)1.000
Mosaic architecture27 (69.2)48 (64.0)0.679
Margin type0.503
Smooth27 (69.2)57 (76.0)
Irregular12 (30.8)18 (24.0)
AJCC v.739 (100.0)75 (100.0)
AJCC v.80.005
cT1a (≤ 2 cm)3 (7.7)24 (32.0)
cT1b (> 2 cm)36 (92.3)51 (68.0)