PMC:6736480 / 14859-16293 JSONTXT

{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PMC/sourceid/6736480","sourcedb":"PMC","sourceid":"6736480","source_url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/6736480","text":"3.3 Endoscopy, mrTRG, and combination modality for predicting the good-response group using ROC curves\nWhen the good response group was defined as ypT0 (Fig. 3A), the values of AUC showed significant differences between the 3 modalities (P \u003c .001). Endoscopy showed significantly higher AUC (0.818) than did mrTRG and combination modality in differentiating good response from poor response (P \u003c .001). Among the 3 modalities, endoscopy showed the highest value and mrTRG showed the lowest value. When the good response group was defined as ypT0-1 (Fig. 3B), the 3 modalities showed no significant differences in differentiating good tumor response from poor response (P = .117). However, the AUC (0.717) of the combination modality was significantly higher than that of mrTRG (P = .011). When the good response group was defined as ypT0-2 (Fig. 3C), the 3 modalities showed significant differences in differentiating good tumor response from poor response (P = .011). The AUC (0.697) of the combination modality was the highest among the methods, and it was significantly higher than that of mrTRG (P = .026).\nFigure 3 (A) Comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves according to endoscopy, magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG), and the combination modality (endoscopy added to mrTRG) for predicting ypT0. (B) Comparison of ROC curves predicting ypT0-1. (C) Comparison of ROC curves predicting ypT0-2.","divisions":[{"label":"label","span":{"begin":0,"end":3}},{"label":"title","span":{"begin":5,"end":103}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":104,"end":1111}},{"label":"label","span":{"begin":1112,"end":1120}}],"tracks":[]}