Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2025; 17(6): 103298
Published online Jun 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i6.103298
Table 1 Qualitative diagnosis of the disease
Diagnostic methodGold standard (n)
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Accuracy (%)
Positive predictive value (%)
Negative predictive value (%)
Malignant
Benign
Magnetic resonance T2WIMalignant641084.2177.2781.6786.4973.91
Benign123486.8475.0082.5085.7176.74
Diffusion-Weighted ImagingMalignant6611
Benign103397.3797.7397.5098.6795.56
CombinedMalignant741
Benign243
χ2 value7.8249.92717.0989.0428.477
P value0.0200.007< 0.0010.0110.014
Table 2 Diagnostic value in clinical staging
Diagnostic methodGold standard (n)
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Accuracy (%)
Positive predictive value (%)
Negative predictive value (%)
T1-T2
T3-T4
Magnetic resonance T2WIT1-T2251269.4470.0069.7467.5771.79
T3-T4112872.2272.5072.3770.2774.36
Diffusion-weighted imagingT1-T22611
T3-T4102994.4495.0094.7494.4495.00
CombinedT1-T2342
T3-T4238
χ2 value8.0659.19617.2589.0628.180
P value0.0180.010< 0.0010.0110.017
Table 3 Diagnostic value in lymph node staging
Diagnostic method
Gold standard (n)
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Accuracy (%)
Positive predictive value (%)
Negative predictive value (%)
Lymph node metastasis
Yes
No
Magnetic resonance T2WIYes291274.3667.5771.0570.7371.43
No102571.7972.9772.3773.6871.05
Diffusion-weighted imagingYes2810
No112794.8794.5994.7494.8794.59
CombinedYes372
No235
χ2 value7.9018.93116.5468.4258.105
P value0.0190.011< 0.0010.0150.017