Table 3. Comparative analysis of T1 mapping parameters between fat-poor AMLs and ccRCCs.
| Parameters | P | AUC | Cutoff value | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||||
| T1p | <0.01 | 0.938 | 1,421.1 | 100.0 | 75.0 | 0.88 | 1.00 |
| T1e | <0.01 | 0.830 | 593.4 | 100.0 | 65.0 | 0.73 | 0.94 |
| T1d | 0.306 | 0.605 | 804.0 | 62.5 | 30.0 | 0.43 | 0.78 |
| T1d% | 0.211 | 0.608 | 56.1 | 57.5 | 26.2 | 0.45 | 0.76 |
| T1p + T1e | 0.010 | 0.956 | 1,844.1 | 93.8 | 81.3 | 0.91 | 1.00 |
Note: T1p, native T1 values; T1e, enhanced T1 values; T1d, reduction of T1 values; T1d%, ratio of T1 reduction; T1p + T1e, combined parameter of ROC curve analysis for differentiation between fat-poor AMLs and ccRCCs; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; ccRCCs, clear cell renal cell carcinomas; AML, angiomyolipoma.