Comparative analysis of the value of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in evaluating the histological grade of cervical squamous carcinoma

Table 2 Comparisons of MTRasym, MK, MD and ADC Among Three Histologic Grades

Parameters	Grade1	Grade2	Grade3	F-value	P-value	P-value (Grade 1vs.2)	P-value (Grade 1vs.3)	P-value (Grade 2 vs.3)
Volume (cm³)	46.46 ± 17.14	54.24 ± 12.37	54.42 ± 15.61	1.331	0.275	0.422	0.549	0.973
MTRasym (%)	2.96 ± 0.04	3.03 ± 0.04	3.09 ± 0.03	16.974	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.001
MK	0.85 ± 0.03	0.89 ± 0.03	0.94 ± 0.04	26.402	< 0.001	0.002	< 0.001	< 0.001
MD (×10⁻³ mm²/s)	1.08 ± 0.03	1.04 ± 0.03	0.99 ± 0.04	22.938	< 0.001	0.004	< 0.001	< 0.001
ADC (× 10^− 3 mm²/s)	0.95 ± 0.04	0.91 ± 0.02	0.88 ± 0.02	32.354	< 0.001	0.003	< 0.001	0.016

ISSN: 1471-2407