Skip to main content
. 2021 May;11(5):2052–2061. doi: 10.21037/qims-20-919

Table 2. Comparison of morphology and textural features between PTs and FAs.

Features PTs FAs P
Median 25th percentile 75th percentile Median 25th percentile 75th percentile
Cir 18.805 16.945 21.250 20.015 17.583 22.880 0.109
HWR 0.635 0.553 0.708 0.520 0.430 0.623 <0.001
MS 18.525 11.815 27.043 18.780 13.168 25.835 0.818
MC (pixel) 1.340 1.063 1.803 1.490 1.198 1.940 0.082
MI (E6) 2.019 1.433 3.011 1.854 1.288 2.429 0.122
ML 7.000 5.500 9.000 7.000 5.000 9.000 0.021
E 0.050 0.030 0.080 0.030 0.020 0.040 <0.001
GE 2.120 1.993 2.238 2.280 2.160 2.363 <0.001
GM 0.465 0.350 0.750 0.485 0.388 0.630 0.731
IC 1.500 0.000 5.750 1.000 0.000 3.000 0.423
ALS (degree) 7.050 1.710 14.063 5.605 2.120 11.385 0.701

The results are presented as medians, 25th percentiles, and 75th percentiles. The P values are for the nonparametric test results of the morphology and textural features of 40 PTs and 290 FAs. Values in italic denote statistically significant features. PTs, phyllodes tumors; FAs, fibroadenomas; Cir, circularity; HWR, height-to-width ratio; MS, margin spicules; MC, margin coarseness; MI, margin indistinctness; ML, margin lobulation; E, energy; GE, grey entropy; GM, grey mean; IC, internal calcification; ALS, angle between the long axis of the lesion and skin.