The Application Value of ceMDCT in the Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer Extramural Vascular Invasion and Its Influencing Factors
Table 2
Comparison of clinical data of gastric cancer.
Group
Example number
Male/female
Age (years)
T installment
N installment
M installment
T1∼T2
T3∼T4
N0
N1∼N2
M0
M1
There is extrawall vascular invasion
40
24/16
50.87 ± 8.03
3 (7.50)
37 (92.50)
11 (27.50)
29 (72.50)
27 (67.50)
13 (32.50)
There is no extravascular invasion
91
49/42
52.10 ± 9.44
33 (36.26)
58 (63.74)
31 (34.07)
60 (65.93)
66 (72.53)
25 (27.47)
t/χ2
0.426
−0.717
11.536
0.550
0.341
0.514
0.474
0.001
0.458
0.559
Group
Example number
Tumour diameter
Degree of differentiation
Pathological type
Growth
<5.0 cm
≥5.0 cm
High differentiation
Medium and low differentiation
Squamous cancer
Adenous squamous carcinoma
Papillary adenocarcinoma
The distal modular type
The proximal nodular type + diffuse type
There is extrawall vascular invasion
40
6 (15.00)
34 (85.00)
13 (32.50)
27 (67.50)
21 (52.50)
11 (27.50)
8 (20.00)
14 (35.00)
26 (65.00)
There is no extravascular invasion
91
61 (67.03)
30 (32.97)
34 (37.36)
57 (62.64)
44 (48.35)
30 (32.97)
17 (18.68)
59 (64.84)
32 (35.16)
t/χ2
30.108
0.286
0.387
10.025
0.001
0.593
0.824
0.002
Note. TNM staging meets the criteria in the 8th edition TNM staging system for gastric cancer issued by UICC and AJCC. indicates that the difference is statistically significant.
