Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2016 Jul 30;197(2):320–326. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.084

Table 3.

Size of tumors and matched ROIs

Mean ± SD All Matches Mean ± SD Gleason Score
p Value (3 + 4 vs 4 + 3 or greater)
3 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 3 or Greater
No. tumors 118 22 61 32 –
Vol (cc):
 Tumor     2.49 ± 0.26   1.1 ± 0.5   2.6 ± 0.3   3.2 ± 0.5 0.57
 ROI     0.84 ± 0.11 0.31 ± 0.07   0.7 ± 0.1   1.2 ± 0.2 0.01
Diameter (mm):
 Tumor     28.4 ± 0.9 19.2 ± 2.3 30.0 ± 1.1 31.9 ± 1.3 0.38
 ROI     17.0 ± 0.7 12.8 ± 1.0 16.5 ± 0.9 20.5 ± 1.3 0.01
Max Hausdorff distance (mm)     14.8 ± 0.7 10.9 ± 1.5 16.3 ± 0.9 15.2 ± 1.0 0.54

Tumor size exceeded ROI size in each Gleason score category and overall (p <0.05) andGleason scores significantly differed (p <0.05) but no difference was seen in tumor size when comparing Gleason scores 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 or greater.