Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. May 15, 2024; 16(5): 1796-1807
Published online May 15, 2024. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v16.i5.1796
Published online May 15, 2024. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v16.i5.1796
Table 1 Comparison of baseline data of rectal carcinoma patients with different T stages
Factors | Low stage group (n = 62) | High stage group (n = 42) | P value |
Age (yr) | 0.474 | ||
≥ 60 | 34 | 26 | |
< 60 | 28 | 16 | |
Sex | 0.636 | ||
Male | 34 | 25 | |
Female | 28 | 17 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 0.755 | ||
≥ 25 | 16 | 12 | |
< 25 | 46 | 30 | |
Tumor site | 0.991 | ||
Upper | 21 | 14 | |
Middle | 17 | 12 | |
Lower | 24 | 16 | |
Tumor type | 0.854 | ||
Protruded | 8 | 7 | |
Ulcerative | 44 | 29 | |
Infiltrating | 10 | 6 | |
Differentiation degree | 0.786 | ||
Moderate-high differentiation | 40 | 26 | |
Low differentiation | 22 | 16 |
Table 2 Comparison of baseline data of patients with different differentiation degrees
Factors | M + H group (n = 66) | L group (n = 38) | P value |
Age (yr) | 0.703 | ||
≥ 60 | 39 | 21 | |
< 60 | 27 | 17 | |
Sex | 0.855 | ||
Male | 37 | 22 | |
Female | 29 | 16 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 0.572 | ||
≥ 25 | 19 | 9 | |
< 25 | 47 | 29 | |
Tumor site | 1.069 | ||
Upper | 23 | 12 | |
Middle | 20 | 9 | |
Lower | 23 | 17 | |
Tumor type | 0.797 | ||
Protruded | 10 | 5 | |
Ulcerative | 47 | 26 | |
Infiltrating | 9 | 7 | |
T staging | 0.786 | ||
T1-T2 | 40 | 22 | |
T3-T4 | 26 | 16 |
Table 3 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of various parameters
Diagnostic variable | AUC | 95%CI | Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden index |
T stage | ||||||
Ktrans | 0.638 | 0.532-0.745 | 0.26 | 62.90% | 59.52% | 22.43% |
Ve | 0.695 | 0.595-0.794 | 0.45 | 40.32% | 92.86% | 33.18% |
DCE-MRI parameters | 0.742 | 0.646-0.837 | 0.68 | 53.23% | 92.86% | 46.08% |
Differentiation degree | ||||||
Ktrans | 0.672 | 0.549-0.795 | 0.29 | 87.88% | 57.90% | 45.77% |
Ve | 0.725 | 0.626-0.824 | 0.49 | 75.76% | 63.16% | 38.92% |
DCE-MRI parameters | 0.769 | 0.677-0.861 | 0.35 | 78.79% | 65.79% | 44.58% |
Table 4 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of various parameters
Diagnostic variable | AUC | 95%CI | Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden index |
T stage | ||||||
CA19-9 | 0.773 | 0.684-0.863 | 23.63 | 53.23% | 100.00% | 53.23% |
CA125 | 0.802 | 0.716-0.888 | 66.90 | 67.74% | 90.48% | 58.22% |
DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 0.836 | 0.756-0.916 | 0.93 | 72.58% | 95.24% | 67.82% |
Differentiation degree | ||||||
CA19-9 | 0.834 | 0.758-0.909 | 27.49 | 81.82% | 68.42% | 50.24% |
CA125 | 0.796 | 0.711-0.881 | 66.82 | 62.12% | 89.47% | 51.60% |
DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 0.946 | 0.903-0.990 | 0.76 | 87.88% | 97.37% | 85.25% |
Table 5 Delong test of the areas under the curve of DCE-MRI parameters and tumor markers in distinguishing T staging and differentiated degree
Test results | Z value | P value | Difference in AUC | Standard error difference | 95%CI | |
Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
T stage | ||||||
CA199-CA125 | -1.452 | 0.146 | -0.029 | 0.293 | -0.068 | 0.01 |
CA199 - DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 7.616 | < 0.001 | 0.609 | 0.299 | 0.453 | 0.766 |
CA125- DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 7.856 | < 0.001 | 0.638 | 0.296 | 0.479 | 0.797 |
Differentiation degree | ||||||
CA199-CA125 | 0.617 | 0.537 | 0.038 | 0.287 | -0.082 | 0.157 |
CA199- DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 14.913 | < 0.001 | 0.780 | 0.248 | 0.677 | 0.882 |
CA125- DCE-MRI parameters + tumor markers | 13.382 | < 0.001 | 0.742 | 0.257 | 0.633 | 0.851 |
- Citation: Mu RQ, Lv JW, Ma CY, Ma XH, Xing D, Ma HS. Diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging parameters and serum tumor markers in rectal carcinoma prognosis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2024; 16(5): 1796-1807
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v16/i5/1796.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v16.i5.1796