Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 28;11(15):4399. doi: 10.3390/jcm11154399

Table 2.

Comparison of the unfeasibility of biopsy between the first and the second readers based on the PDF document.

Characteristics First Reader
(No Biopsy = 76)
Second Reader
(No Biopsy = 68)
p Value
Dimension (mm) [mean ± SD]
Subgroups
15.2 ± 5.1 15.3 ± 5.2 0.779
10–20 mm (n; %) 66 (86.8) 61 (89.7) 0.578
21–30 mm (n; %) 7 (9.2) 4 (5.9) 0.414
31–40 mm (n; %) 3 (3.9) 3 (4.4) 1
Liver segment
1 (n; %) 0
2 (n; %) 6 (7.9) 9 (13.2) 0.479
3 (n; %) 5 (6.6) 7 (10.3) 0.716
4 (n; %) 8 (10.5) 5 (7.4) 0.433
5 (n; %) 11 (14.5) 12 (17.6) 1
6 (n; %) 5 (6.6) 3 (4.4) 0.678
7 (n; %) 14 (18.4) 10 (14.7) 0.289
8 (n; %) 27 (35.5) 22 (32.4) 0.237
Location
Anterior, superficial (n; %) 44 (57.9) 36 (52.9) 0.217
Posterior, superficial (n; %) 14 (18.4) 12 (17.6) 0.777
Centrohepatic (n; %) 14 (18.4) 16(23.5) 0.789
Deep behind a fictitious line of the portal axis (n; %) 4 (5.3) 4 (5.9) 1
Contrast behaviour
Arterial hypervascularisation (n; %) 16 (21.0) 18 (26.5) 0.832
No arterial hypervascularisation (n; %) 36 (47.4) 42 (61.8) 0.426

SD: standard deviation.