Detection of early gastric cancer using hydro-stomach CT: Blinded vs unblinded analysis

Table 1 Comparison of cancer characteristics between visible and invisible early gastric cancers

Characteristic	Visible EGC(n = 39)	Invisible ECC (n = 71)	P value at univariate analysis	Multiple logistic regression analysis
				P value	Odds ratio	95% CI
Size (cm)	3.59 ± 1.91	2.20 ± 1.37	< 0.001	0.002	1.573	1.185-2.088
Depth of invasion			0.001	0.018	2.923	1.201-7.116
Mucosa	17	54
Submucosa	22	17
Involved segment			0.378
Upper 1/3	6
Middle 1/3	14	28
Lower 1/3	19	38
Type of histology			0.862
Tubular adenocarcinoma, well differentiated	10	15
Tubular adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated	14	21
Tubular adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated	8	17
Poorly differentiated carcinoma	1	3
Signet ring cell carcinoma	6	15
Gross morphology of tumor			0.541
I	1	2
IIa	8	7
IIb	7	17
IIc	23	44
III	0	1

EGC: Early gastric cancer.

Table 2 Diagnostic performance of early gastric cancer on hydro-stomach computed tomography n (%)

	Reviewer 1			Reviewer 2
	Blinded	Unblinded	P value	Blinded	Unblinded	P value
Sensitivity	22/110 (20)	30/110 (27)	> 0.05	21/110 (19)	27/110 (25)	> 0.05
Specificity	215/220 (98)	219/220 (100)	> 0.05	216/220 (98)	215/220 (98)	> 0.05

Data in parenthesis are numbers of lesions. McNemar test was used for statistical analysis.