Table 1 Comparison of the basic and CT morphological characteristics between the RMS group and the non-RMS group.

From: Fisher discriminant model based on LASSO logistic regression for computed tomography imaging diagnosis of pelvic rhabdomyosarcoma in children

 

RMS group (n = 36)

Non-RMS group (n = 85)

Statistic

P value

Baseline

Age (year) Q (Q1–Q3)

2.5 (1–6.5)

6 (1–9)

1.767 a

0.077

Sex (male/female)

14/22

24/61

1.332 b

0.248

Density N (%)

Lower than normal muscle density

35 (97.2)

51 (60.4)

17.043 b

 < 0.001

Calcification

1 (2.8)

23 (27.1)

9.377 b

0.002

Hemorrhage

5 (13.9)

28 (32.9)

4.628 b

0.031

Necrosis

35 (97.2)

71 (83.5)

 

0.066

Shape N (%)

Multinodular fusion

23 (63.9)

10 (11.8)

34.641 b

 < 0.001

Lobulated

28 (77.8)

44 (51.8)

7.102 b

0.008

Round/orbicular

6 (16.7)

22 (25.9)

1.208 b

0.272

Margin N (%)

Unclear

8 (22.2)

26 (30.6)

0.876 b

0.349

Enhancement feature N (%)

Surrounding blood vessels

29 (80.6)

16 (18.8)

41.257 b

 < 0.001

Heterogeneous progressive centripetal enhancement

31 (86.1)

10 (11.8)

62.395 b

 < 0.001

Ring enhancement

5 (13.9)

6 (7.1)

c

0.300

Grape cluster reinforcement

0 (0.0)

71 (0.0)

Metastasis N (%)

Lymphatic metastasis

12 (33.3)

14 (16.5)

4.263 b

0.039

Bone erosion

2 (5.6)

5 (5.9)

c

1.000

  1. Q is the median age, Q1–Q3 are 25–75% quantiles.
  2. CT computed tomography, RMS rhabdomyosarcoma.
  3. aUsing the M–U test.
  4. bUsing the Chi-square test.
  5. cUsing Fisher's exact probability test.