Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 21;92(1104):20190401. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190401

Table 3. .

Degree of agreement between hispathological and radiological staging

MRIs’ techniques Histopathological stages p-value
Stage I Stage II Stage IV
T1W-MRI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage IV
20 (62.5%)
12 (37.5%)
0
4 (33.3%)
8 (66.7%)
0
2 (33.3%)
0
4 (66.7%)
<0.001
Degree of agreement 0.41 (moderate agreement)
T2W-MRI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Stage IV
28 (87.5%)
4 (12.5%)
0
0
4 (33.3%)
4 (33.3%)
4 (33.3%)
0
0
0
0
6 (100%)
<0.001
Degree of agreement 0.75 (good agreement)
DW-MRI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage IV
32 (100%)
0
0
4 (33.3%)
8 (66.7%)
0
0
0
6 (100%)
<0.001
Degree of agreement 0.40 (moderate agreement)
DCE-MRI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
28 (87.5%)
4 (12.5%)
0
4 (33.3%)
8 (66.7%)
0
2 (33.3%)
0
4 (66.7%)
<0.001
Degree of agreement 0.80 (very good agreement)
Multiparametric MRI
Stage I
Stage II
Stage IV
28 (87.5%)
4 (12.5%)
0
4 (33.3%)
8 (66.7%)
0
0
0
6 (100%)
<0.001
Degree of agreement 0.87 (very good agreement)

DCE, dynamic contrast enhanced.

Data were expressed in form of frequency (percentage). p-value was significant if <0.05.