Table 3.
Comparison of quantitative measurements between benign and malignant fractures
| Benign (n = 63) | Malignant (n = 32) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative method | Mean (%) | Std dev (%) | Mean (%) | Std dev (%) | p value | |
| ROI1 | Signal drop | 43 | 13 | 13 | 13 | < 0.0011 |
| FF from W and F images | 36 | 17 | 15 | 15 | < 0.0011 | |
| FF map | 35 | 14 | 18 | 14 | < 0.0011 | |
| ROI2 | Signal drop | 41 | 16 | 7 | 8 | < 0.0011 |
| FF from W and F images | 26 | 12 | 7 | 5 | < 0.0011 | |
| FF map | 25 | 10 | 9 | 8 | < 0.0011 | |
| Control vertebrae | Signal drop | 49 | 22 | 52 | 15 | 0.551 |
| FF from W and F images | 77 | 11 | 76 | 15 | 0.711 | |
| FF map | 77 | 11 | 77 | 13 | 0.971 | |
1Independent samples t-test
ROI, region of interest; W, water-only; F, fat-only
Note: ROI1 was drawn on the entire vertebra, and ROI2 was drawn on the area of the vertebra showing bone marrow edema-like signal intensity