Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 10;15(3):e0229983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229983

Table 2. Comparison of 2D ADC measurement for treatment response of osteosarcoma.

Parameters Poor responder Good responder P
Pretreatment 2D ADCminimum n = 9 n = 2
 Reader 1 870 [795;956] 999 [870;1127] 0.555
 Reader 2 955 [813;1268] 939 [765;1112] 0.813
Pretreatment 2D ADCmean n = 9 n = 2
 Reader 1 1130 [1065;1426] 1180 [1011;1349] 0.478
 Reader 2 1179 [1076;1585] 1248 [1001;1495] 0.637
Posttreatment 2D ADCminimum n = 13 n = 4
 Reader 1 1195 [1017;1384] 1613 [1575;1751] 0.024*
 Reader 2 1099 [998;1481] 1610 [1531;1656] 0.089
Posttreatment 2D ADCmean n = 13 n = 4
 Reader 1 1439 [1232;1968] 2151 [2081;2426] 0.017*
 Reader 2 1395 [1311;1964] 2025 [1843;2182] 0.089
Percent change 2D ADCminimum n = 9 n = 2
 Reader 1 30 [17;38] 60 [44;77] 0.099
 Reader 2 19 [-3;21] 72 [51;93] 0.034*
Percent change 2D ADCmean n = 9 n = 2
 Reader 1 10 [8;28] 80 [54;106] 0.034*
 Reader 2 9 [-2;23] 55 [18;92] 0.239

2D ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient values derived from single-section regions of interest.

*indicates statistical significance.