Skip to main content

Table 2 CEUS features in the training and validation cohort

From: Comparison of machine learning models and CEUS LI-RADS in differentiation of hepatic carcinoma and liver metastases in patients at risk of both hepatitis and extrahepatic malignancy

Parameter

Correlation index

(r)

Training Cohort

Validation Cohort

HCC (N = 188)

LM (N = 188)

P

HCC (N = 44)

LM (N = 44)

P

Diameter

0.01738

4.29 ± 2.76

4.46 ± 2.77

0.343*

4.23 ± 2.93

4.01 ± 2.31

0.822*

Wash-in Time

0.08857

14.59 ± 4.78

15.37 ± 5.87

0.209*

13.70 ± 3.78

15.32 ± 6.03

0.323*

Wash-out Time

-0.39343

75.85 ± 63.32

35.26 ± 20.82

< 0.001*

70.66 ± 60.49

34.41 ± 16.69

< 0.001*

Arterial phase enhancement

-0.16467

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001*

Hyper-enhancement

 

165 (90.16%)

114 (62.30%)

 

40 (90.91%)

26 (59.09%)

 

Iso-enhancement

 

9 (4.92%)

20 (10.93%)

 

3 (6.82%)

6 (13.64%)

 

Hypo-enhancement

 

9 (4.92%)

49 (26.78%)

 

1 (2.27%)

12 (27.27%)

 

Homogeneity

0.20708

  

< 0.001

  

0.019

Homogeneity

 

108 (59.02%)

72 (39.34%)

 

27 (61.36%)

16 (36.36%)

 

Heterogeneity

 

75 (40.98%)

111 (60.66%)

 

17 (38.64%)

28 (63.64%)

 

Washout

0.20094

  

< 0.001

  

0.179

No

 

36 (19.67%)

10 (5.46%)

 

7 (15.91%)

3 (6.82%)

 

Yes

 

147 (80.33%)

173 (94.54%)

 

37 (84.09%)

41 (93.18%)

 

Washout type

0.49244

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

No

 

37 (20.22%)

11 (6.01%)

 

8 (18.18%)

3 (6.82%)

 

Mild washout

 

141 (77.05%)

78 (42.62%)

 

33 (75.00%)

20 (45.45%)

 

Marked washout

 

5 (2.73%)

94 (51.37%)

 

3 (6.82%)

21 (47.73%)

 

Washout type I

0.63146

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

No/Mild washout (> 60s)

 

139 (75.96%)

22 (12.02%)

 

30 (68.18%)

5 (11.36%)

 

Marked/Mild washout (≤ 60s)

 

44 (24.04%)

161 (87.98%)

 

14 (31.82%)

39 (88.64%)

 

Washout type II

0.65846

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

No/Mild washout (> 54s)

 

144 (78.69%)

25 (13.66%)

 

35 (79.55%)

5 (11.36%)

 

Marked/Mild washout (≤ 54s)

 

39 (21.31%)

158 (86.34%)

 

9 (20.45%)

39 (88.64%)

 

Unclear Border

0.50787

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

No

 

134 (73.22%)

38 (20.77%)

 

29 (65.91%)

10 (22.73%)

 

Yes

 

49 (26.78%)

145 (79.23%)

 

15 (34.09%)

34 (77.27%)

 

Tumor artery

0.02126

  

0.619

  

1.000

No

 

143 (78.14%)

139 (75.96%)

 

36 (81.82%)

36 (81.82%)

 

Yes

 

40 (21.86%)

44 (24.04%)

 

8 (18.18%)

8 (18.18%)

 

Wheel enhancement

-0.07901

  

0.121*

  

1.000*

No

 

177 (96.72%)

182 (99.45%)

 

43 (97.73%)

43 (97.73%)

 

Yes

 

6 (3.28%)

1 (0.55%)

 

1 (2.27%)

1 (2.27%)

 

Rim enhancement

0.37034

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

No

 

179 (97.81%)

132 (72.13%)

 

44 (100.00%)

31 (70.45%)

 

Yes

 

4 (2.19%)

51 (27.87%)

 

0 (0.00%)

13 (29.55%)

 

LI-RADS

0.50722

  

< 0.001

  

< 0.001

3

 

6 (3.28%)

4 (2.19%)

 

0 (0.00%)

2 (4.55%)

 

4

 

27 (14.75%)

3 (1.64%)

 

5 (11.36%)

1 (2.27%)

 

5

 

105 (57.38%)

11 (6.01%)

 

25 (56.82%)

2 (4.55%)

 

M

 

45 (24.59%)

165 (90.16%)

 

14 (31.82%)

39 (88.64%)

 
  1. LM: Liver metastasis; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Correlation index (r) is Pearson’s correlation coefficient. P*: Continuous variables—Kruskal Wallis rank sum test; Count variables < 10—Fisher exact test
  2. The correlation index is Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The size of the circle reflects the degree of statistical significance
  3. Abbreviations: DM, Diameter; WIT, Wash-in Time; WOT, Wash-out Time; APHE, Arterial phase enhancement; HG, Homogeneity; WO, Washout; WO type, Washout type; WO type I, Washout type I; WO type II, Washout type II; UCB, Unclear Border; TA, Tumor artery; WE, Wheel enhancement; RE, Rim enhancement; LM, Liver metastasis
Back to article page

Cancer Imaging

ISSN: 1470-7330

Contact us