From: The efficacy of TACE; how can automated feeder software help?
Cases (n = 44) | Control (n = 41) | Test of Sig. | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | ||||
Male | 27 (61.4%) | 26 (63.4%) | χ2 = 0.038 | 0.845 |
Female | 17 (38.6%) | 15 (36.6%) | ||
Age (years) | ||||
Mean ± SD | 60.1 ± 8.3 | 59.4 ± 8.3 | t = 0.375 | 0.708 |
Median (Min.–Max.) | 60.5 (42–71) | 60.0 (39–72) | ||
Child Pugh class | ||||
A | 25 (56.8%) | 22 (53.7%) | χ2 = 0.086 | 0.770 |
B | 19 (43.2%) | 19 (46.3%) | ||
Lesion size (cm) | (n = 57) | (n = 55) | ||
Mean ± SD | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | t = 1.293 | 0.199 |
Median (Min.–Max.) | 2.9 (1.9–4.8) | 2.9 (1.6–4.7) | ||
Number of lesions | (n = 57) | (n = 55) | ||
1 | 33 (75.0%) | 27 (65.9%) | χ2 = 3.190 | MCp = 0.156 |
2 | 9 (20.5%) | 14 (34.1%) | ||
3 | 2 (4.5%) | 0 (0.0%) |