. 2018 Feb 5;91(1084):20170728. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170728

Table 3.

Relationship between histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma and diffusion-weighted parameters with results of statistical analysis

	b = 1000 s mm^–2			b = 800 s mm^–2
ADC (×10⁻³ mm² s^–1)	RCR	CNR	ADC (×10⁻³ mm² s^–1)	RCR	CNR
wHCC^a	1.08 ± 0.15	1.76 ± 1.09	9.05 ± 8.86	1.33 ± 0.19	2.22 ± 0.74	13.03 ± 8.54
mHCC^a	1.19 ± 0.23	2.74 ± 1.45	15.27 ± 11.56	1.20 ± 0.21	2.85 ± 1.83	17.29 ± 12.72
pHCC^a	1.01 ± 0.19	5.04 ± 2.25	34.54 ± 18.56	1.06 ± 0.39	5.25 ± 3.25	38.22 ± 24.18
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient^b	−0.27^b1	0.62^b3	0.64^b3	−0.44^b2	0.53^b3	0.53^b3
Kruskal–Wallis test p-value	0.027	<0.001	<0.001	0.017	0.002	0.002
Wilcoxon rank sum test p-value
wHCC vs mHCC	1.000	0.137	0.706	0.654	0.843	1.000
mHCC vs pHCC	0.031	<0.001	<0.001	0.154	0.015	0.005
wHCC vs pHCC	0.478	<0.001	<0.001	0.019	0.005	0.008
ROC analysis
wHCC vs mHCC + pHCC cut-off value	1.13	1.83	13.70	1.27	2.18	14.87
AUC^c	0.504 (0.299, 0.708)	0.820 (0.659, 0.981)	0.760 (0.591, 0.929)	0.720 (0.562, 0.878)	0.728 (0.551, 0.905)	0.703 (0.511, 0.895)
wHCC + mHCC vs pHCC cut-off value	1.13	3.22	17.66	1.10	2.87	16.99
AUC^c	0.711 (0.569, 0.852)	0.853 (0.757, 0.947)	0.864 (0.773, 0.955)	0.757 (0.552, 0.962)	0.835 (0.705, 0.964)	0.839 (0.712, 0.966)

AUC, area under the curve; ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; CNR, contrast-to-noise ratio; mHCC, moderately-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma; pHCC, poorly-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma; RCR, relative contrast ratio; wHCC, well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma.

^aThe data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.

^bSignificant differences are indicated as follows: ^b1p < 0.05, ^b2p < 0.01, ^b3p < 0.001.

^cData in parentheses are the 95% confidence intervals.