Table 4 Rectal cancer nodal enhancement characteristics on MR images versus histopathological findings in subgroups with different short-axis diameter ranges
Radiologist | Radiologist 1 | Radiologist 2 | κ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Histopathologic Findings | Benign | Malignant | P | Benign | Malignant | P | |
≤5 mm | 290 | 23 | 290 | 23 | |||
Enhancement degree | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.593 | ||||
Obvious | 255 (87.9%) | 4 (17.4%) | 265 (91.4%) | 6 (26.1%) | |||
Intermediate | 32 (11.0%) | 15 (65.2%) | 19 (6.6%) | 15 (65.2%) | |||
Mild | 3 (1.0%) | 4 (17.4%) | 6 (2.1%) | 2 (8.7%) | |||
Enhancement homogeneity | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.699 | ||||
Homogeneous | 218 (75.2%) | 1 (4.3%) | 209 (72.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | |||
Mild-heterogeneous | 67 (23.1%) | 7 (30.4%) | 73 (25.2%) | 8 (34.8%) | |||
Obvious-heterogenous | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (13.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (4.3%) | |||
Rim-like | 5 (1.7%) | 12 (52.2%) | 8 (2.8%) | 14 (60.9%) | |||
> 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm | 40 | 71 | 40 | 71 | |||
Enhancement degree | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.627 | ||||
Obvious | 22 (55.0%) | 8 (11.3%) | 22 (55.0%) | 6 (8.5%) | |||
Intermediate | 14 (35.0%) | 34 (47.9%) | 13 (32.5%) | 34 (47.9%) | |||
Mild | 4(10.0%) | 29 (40.8%) | 5 (12.5%) | 31 (43.7%) | |||
Enhancement homogeneity | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.651 | ||||
Homogeneous | 5 (12.5%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (2.5%) | 2 (2.8%) | |||
Mild-heterogeneous | 29 (72.5%) | 5 (7.0%) | 29 (72.5%) | 5 (7.0%) | |||
Obvious-heterogenous | 2 (5.0%) | 27 (38.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | 34 (47.9%) | |||
Rim-like | 4 (10.0%) | 36 (50.7%) | 7 (17.5%) | 30 (42.3%) | |||
> 10 mm* | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | |||
Enhancement degree | – | – | 0.521 | ||||
Obvious | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | 0 | |||
Intermediate | 0 | 8 (47.1%) | 0 | 6 (35.3%) | |||
Mild | 0 | 9 (52.9%) | 0 | 11 (64.7%) | |||
Enhancement homogeneity | – | – | 0.783 | ||||
Homogeneous | 0 | 1 (5.9%) | 0 | 0 | |||
Mild-heterogeneous | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | 1 (5.9%) | |||
Obvious-heterogenous | 0 | 6 (35.3%) | 0 | 7 (41.2%) | |||
Rim-like | 0 | 10 (58.8%) | 0 | 9 (52.9%) | |||