Table 1:
Conventional MR imaging features and grades of PCNSLs and TDLs
| PCNSLs (n = 44) | TDLs (n = 21) | |
|---|---|---|
| No. of lesions | aP = .463 | |
| Single lesion | 24 (54.5%) | 8 (38.1%) |
| Multiple focal lesions | 14 (31.8%) | 9 (42.9%) |
| Diffuse lesions | 6 (13.6%) | 4 (19.0%) |
| Enhancing pattern | aP = .000 | |
| Homogeneous | 24 (54.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
| Ring | 4 (9.1%) | 1 (4.8%) |
| Open ring | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
| Patchy infiltrative | 11 (25.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
| Streaky infiltrative | 3 (6.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| No enhancement | 2 (4.5%) | 9 (42.9%) |
| Conventional MR grades | aP = .000 | |
| Grade 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
| Grade 2 | 5 (11.4%) | 5 (23.8%) |
| Grade 3 | 7 (15.9%) | 6 (28.6%) |
| Grade 4 | 8 (18.2%) | 4 (19.0%) |
| Grade 5 | 24 (54.5%) | 1 (4.8%) |
Note:—Grade 1: quite certainly TDL; grade 2: probably TDL; grade 3: equivocal; grade 4: probably PCNSL; grade 5: quite certainly PCNSL.
a
P values represent the comparison results of PCNSLs and TDLs by use of Pearson χ2 test or Fisher exact test.