Table 3.
Relationships between indicators and the histological grades of differentiation of HCC 1.
| Indicators and Patterns | Characteristics | Group Comparison | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size(s) (diameter(s)) of the lesions 2 | / | Early and well differentiated | <0.001 |
| Early and moderately differentiated | <0.001 | ||
| Early and poorly differentiated | <0.001 | ||
| Echogenicity on the grayscale US images | hyper/iso/hypo | total | 0.286 |
| Halo sign | positive/negative | Early (2/43) and well differentiated (13/18) | <0.001 |
| Early and moderately differentiated (46/22) | <0.001 | ||
| Early and poorly differentiated (32/24) | <0.001 | ||
| Well differentiated and moderately differentiated | 0.016 | ||
| Mosaic sign | positive/negative | Early (1/44) and moderately differentiated (24/44) | <0.001 |
| Early and poorly differentiated (20/36) | <0.001 | ||
| Vascularity of AP in Sonazoid CEUS | hyper/iso/hypo | Early (13/6/26) and well differentiated (25/1/5) | <0.001 |
| Early and moderate (56/4/8) | <0.001 | ||
| Early and poorly (50/5/1) | <0.001 | ||
| Vascularity in PP of Sonazoid CEUS | iso/hypo | Early (41/3) and moderate (49/17) | 0.012 |
| Poorly (14/41) and early | <0.001 | ||
| Poorly and well (24/7) | <0.001 | ||
| Poorly and moderate | <0.001 | ||
| Echo in PVP of Sonazoid CEUS | iso/hypo | Early (41/4) and well (12/19) | <0.001 |
| Early and moderate (1/67) | <0.001 | ||
| Early and poorly (0/56) | <0.001 | ||
| Poorly and well | <0.001 | ||
| Moderate and well | <0.001 | ||
| Intense in HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI | low/iso or high | Early (40/0) and poorly (39/6) | 0.027 |
1 Abbreviations: HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; CEUS: Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI: Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid magnetic resonance imaging; HBP: Hepatobiliary phase; AP: Arterial phase, PP: Portal phase; PVP: Post-vascular phase; 2 In order to obtain more information from the original data for the statistical analysis, the independent variable for comparison here is the specific value of the focus size (continuity variable), rather than the frequency of different size ranges according to the size cutoff value (classification variable). As the size of the lesion did not show normal distribution, the Kruskal–Wallis test in the rank sum test was used.