BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2025; 17(9): 107301
Published online Sep 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.107301
Table 1 Comparative analysis of metabolic parameters between Edmondson grade II and III hepatocellular carcinoma groups, maximum tumor diameter (interquartile range)

Edmondson grade II (n = 17)
Edmondson grade III (n = 15)
Z
P value
SUVmax6.43 (4.36-7.73)13.79 (9.04-17.99)3.3990.001
SUVmean3.24 (2.83-4.145)6.24 (3.99-6.83)3.0400.002
MTV31.23 (18.91-120.52)94.7 (41.9-280.0)1.9450.052
TLG107.3 (54.94-384.825)590.5 (208.9-1828.0)2.7760.006
TNR2.18 (1.405-2.605)4.76 (2.58-5.62)2.9640.003
TBR3.18 (2.015-4.18)6.27 (2.93-8.64)2.6630.008
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)5.4 (4.15-7.05)6.9 (4.8-11.3)1.9840.047
Ki67 expression percentage (mean ± SD)26.76% ± 13.22%52.3% ± 20.5%3.3560.001
Table 2 Diagnostic performance of various parameters based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis

Cutoff
AUC (95%CI)
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
P value
SUVmax10.950.853 (0.709-0.997)66.71000.001
SUVmean4.320.816 (0.655-0.976)73.388.20.002
TLG248.10.788 (0.630-0.947)71.576.50.006
TNR2.530.808 (0.643-0.973)8076.50.003
TBR4.460.776 (0.597-0.956)70.282.40.008