Table 2.
Supplementary data of EBL, EP, and CNS-PNET NOS cases regarding spinal MRI, MR spectroscopy, and CT findings
| EBL, n = 22 | EP, n = 22 | CNS-PNET NOS, n = 22 | (a) P 1 vs 2 | (b) P 1 vs 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spinal MRI available | 22 | 22 | 18 | ||
| Yes | 7 (32%) | 12 (55%) | 12 (67%) | ||
| No | 3 (14%) | 2 (9%) | 3 (17%) | ||
| Not sufficient | 12 (55%) | 8 (36%) | 3 (17%) | ||
| Meningeal dissemination* | 22 | 22 | 22 | .66 | .246 |
| Unknown (M0 or M1) | 17 (77%) | 20 (91%) | 14 (64%) | ||
| M2 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| M3 | 3 (14%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| M2 + M3 | 2 (9%) | 1 (5%) | 7 (32%) | ||
| MR spectroscopy available | 22 | 22 | 18 | ||
| Yes | 3 (14%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (17%) | ||
| No | 19 (86%) | 22 (100%) | 15 (83%) | ||
| CT available | 22 | 22 | 18 | ||
| Yes | 5 (23%) | 3 (14%) | 5 (28%) | ||
| No | 17 (77%) | 19 (86%) | 13 (72%) | ||
| Calcifications (CT) | 5 | 3 | 5 | .392 | .334 |
| Yes | 3 (60%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| No | 2 (40.0%) | 3 (100%) | 5 (100%) |
Note that relative frequencies do not equal 100% in some cases, due to mathematical rounding.
This table shows P-values after paired comparison of imaging parameters in (a) EBL vs EP and (b) EBL vs CNS-PNET NOS.
*Macroscopic dissemination (detectable with MRI).