1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )Table 1:Comparison of demographic and conventional MR imaging characteristics between low- and high-grade PITs
Characteristics Low-Grade Tumor High-Grade Tumor P Value Demography Age (mean) (yr) 9.71 (SD, 3.66) 9.02 (SD, 4.11) .51 Male sex (No.) (%) 17 (65.4%) 23 (82.1%) .16 Location (No.) .13 Cerebral hemisphere 9 5 Cerebellum 12 11 Basal ganglia/brain stem 3 3 Other 2 9 Conventional MR imaging Cystic degeneration (No.) (%) 16 (61.5%) 13 (46.4%) .27 Hemorrhage (No.) (%) 5 (19.2%) 10 (35.7%) .18 Necrosis (No.) (%) 5 (19.2%) 14 (50.0%) .02 Enhancement (No.) (%) 21 (80.8%) 25 (89.3%) .62 Peritumoral edema (No.) (%) 10 (38.5%) 15 (53.6%) .27 Clear margin (No.) (%) 14 (53.8%) 13 (46.4%) .59